Gary Johnson HOT: Gary Johnson Interview with Robert Wenzel - Just How Libertarian is Gary Johnson?

[NewRightLibertarian]

So the Libertarian Party has all along been working against the Ron Paul R3volution? Even thought they've been in this process since 1972?

Do you remember how he was a Republican candidate before he switched to the Libertarian Party? Or are you ignorant of that fact like you were ignorant of the fact that Ron Paul wants to end the federal reserve?

I urge all libertarians to rally behind Gary Johnson if Ron Paul is on the ballot, so we can get a libertarian voice into the debates.

Nah, libertarians shouldn't do that unless they want to propel a protender to the front of the movement. They shouldn't do that unless they want someone who doesn't know anything about economics and is an interventionist given the public stage as the standard bearer of libertarianism. He would likely be made to look like a fool and set the movement back big time.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Like I said, I never inferred GJ was a libertarian. He's a conservative republican, just as Ron was when he ran on the LP ticket. Libertarians were crying when Ron did it, too. Ron's pro life stance wasn't exactly accepted at the time Your party was also full of much more anarchist leaning individuals at the time as well. I guess you don't remember that, do you? Ron didn't really mesh with the LP platform at the time but you nominated him anyway. Just remember, Ron Paul never wanted to permit child pornography like Mary Ruwart one of the many lines separating us.

And, again, if you have a problem with it, you should probably be a working part of the libertarian party instead of complaining on internet forums. What you're doing would be akin to me complaining about the republican party, but not donating to liberty candidates in the party, not working with my state party to get Ron Paul delegates to the convention, not working with our groups to getting the platform changed...

What are you and Travlyr doing in the LP? Not a damned thing. You sit on your asses, on a computer, and when they nominate a guy you don't like to run on their ticket you cry foul and nitpick. Fact of the matter is GJ is an incredibly strong conservative republican which is what many people here identify with.

So the bigger questions are...

Why aren't you at the nominating convention for the LP? How come you're not running for any positions as a Libertarian? How come you're not carrying their torch?

Do you remember how he was a Republican candidate before he switched to the Libertarian Party? Or are you ignorant of that fact like you were ignorant of the fact that Ron Paul wants to end the federal reserve?



Nah, libertarians shouldn't do that unless they want to propel a protender to the front of the movement. They shouldn't do that unless they want someone who doesn't know anything about economics and is an interventionist given the public stage as the standard bearer of libertarianism. He would likely be made to look like a fool and set the movement back big time.

 

[TheTexan]

Nah, libertarians shouldn't do that unless they want to propel a protender to the front of the movement. They shouldn't do that unless they want someone who doesn't know anything about economics and is an interventionist given the public stage as the standard bearer of libertarianism. He would likely be made to look like a fool and set the movement back big time.

This.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

1. They did it with Ron Paul and pissed a bunch of LP members off.
2. Then work in your party instead of spending your time on the forum. Quit complaining, you're all little girls.

This.

 

[TheTexan]

Fact of the matter is GJ is an incredibly strong conservative republican which is what many people here identify with.

Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to retain") is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative.

Conservatism... the philosophy of promoting the status quo. Doesn't sound like Ron Paul to me.

If you want to try to compromise your way to winning an election, that's your prerogative. I happen to think that compromise is what got us to this shitty place we're at today, and the lack of compromise in Ron Paul on the other hand is what ignited this movement. You can compromise all you like though, just don't shine shit and try to call it gold.

And make no mistake about it, Gary Johnson is shit.

 

[TheTexan]

1. They did it with Ron Paul and pissed a bunch of LP members off.

Getting behind Ron Paul pissed off a bunch of LP? /concerned

2. Then work in your party instead of spending your time on the forum.

I don't give a flying rat's ass what party someone's in.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Ron Paul is a conservative. Rand Paul is a conservative. So STFU.

When Ron Paul ran on the LP ticket, bread and butter LP members were pissed off just like you are about GJ right now. So don't try to act like this is so unheard of or unseen. The fact of the matter is your party is full of self-righteous idiots like yourself so nothing ever gets done and you never get into any level of government. You can only blame election laws so much. You're so busy fighting amongst yourselves and hating on candidates because you're all always looking for the perfect candidate.

I'm going to ask you and everyone else here who has criticized GJ for hard facts one last time. Show me proof of one thing that's unconstitutional that GJ has EVER done.

Hell, I can show you how Justin Amash made an unconstitutional vote months into his first term. Show me one unconstitutional thing GJ has done his entire tenure as governor. I'm STILL waiting. No one has given me ANYTHING.

Conservatism... the philosophy of promoting the status quo. Doesn't sound like Ron Paul to me.

If you want to try to compromise your way to winning an election, that's your prerogative. I happen to think that compromise is what got us to this shitty place we're at today, and the lack of compromise in Ron Paul on the other hand is what ignited this movement. You can compromise all you like though, just don't shine shit and try to call it gold.

And make no mistake about it, Gary Johnson is shit.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

And now I'm just going to drop a bomb on you to end all the nonsense and prove you, travlyr, and the others have no idea what you're talking about. If you claimed to be so staunchly a part of the LP, you'd know a little more about their history, no?

The libertarian party has attempted to draft Johnson since the 1990s. Almost relentlessly. Where were you then, if you were so against him? Why weren't you involved in the party then to stop it before they drafted him 20 years later?

And, to further my point, Ron is no Rothbardian (any of you that claim to have read or studied Rothbard are clearly liars.) Rothbard was pro choice and advocated open borders. Even further, those grouping Rothbard and Hayek as the same economic thought obviously have read neither. Even among two of the most championed scholars of the Austrian school, there are staunch differences. To imply the Libertarian party and the Austrian school are both united under a strict list of principles is nonsensical. They never have been.

 

[TheTexan]

Ron Paul is a conservative.

When Ron Paul ran on the LP ticket, bread and butter LP members were pissed off just like you are about GJ right now. So don't try to act like this is so unheard of or unseen. The fact of the matter is your party is full of self-righteous idiots like yourself so nothing ever gets done and you never get into any level of government. You can only blame election laws so much. You're so busy fighting amongst yourselves and hating on candidates because you're all always looking for the perfect candidate.

The Libertarian party is no better than the Republican party, and vice versa.

I'm going to ask you and everyone else here who has criticized GJ for hard facts one last time. Show me proof of one thing that's unconstitutional that GJ has EVER done.

Hell, I can show you how Justin Amash made an unconstitutional vote months into his first term. Show me one unconstitutional thing GJ has done his entire tenure as governor. I'm STILL waiting. No one has given me ANYTHING.

The funny thing about state's rights, is just about everything is constitutional at the state level. And I'm not familiar with New Mexico's constitution, nor do I need to be to know that forcing restaurants to put calories on their menu is bad legislation. Nor do I need to be to know that the Federal Reserve is the #1 problem facing our country today, and GJ knows neither jack nor shit about it.

Look, I'm really not that picky about candidates. There's pretty much just one thing that a candidate must have: principles. GJ simply does not have this, and is subsequently the reason why he lacks a fundamental understanding of so many issues.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Again, another person that hasn't researched anything GJ has said.

His latest ad is about the fed.

Done arguing with you. Stubborn kid, apparently.

 

[TheTexan]

Again, another person that hasn't researched anything GJ has said.

His latest ad is about the fed.

Done arguing with you. Stubborn kid, apparently.

I've done my research. Johnson knows nothing about the fed. All he's doing is pandering to Ron Paul people, and it's apparently working.

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

I've done my research. Johnson knows nothing about the fed. All he's doing is pandering to Ron Paul people, and it's apparently working.

Sadly, many in our movement are easily duped by snakes like Johnson. They don't understand how important sound money and non-intervention are.

 

[schiffheadbaby]

Yes you can easily tell GJ doesn't have a firm grasp of monetary policy.

Rockandrollsouls is free to start GJforums.

I agree with Travylr, GJ is an intellectual lightweight and a joke of a candidate. I'll pass

 

[cheapseats]

The idea that one who hasn't read Rothbard can't be a libertarian is beyond idiotic.

Agreed.

HAVING READ THE BIBLE ain't a trusty measure of upstanding character, neither.

 

[cheapseats]

I never really considered Johnson libertarian...

Outside the political junkie bubble, including LIBERTARIAN among the time-honored DEMOCRAT and REPUBLICAN options is quite new.

And very WELCOME...theoretically.

There are different ELITES and different ways of being ELITIST.

What I do know is that by the end of his term, he left [New Mexico] in a surpluss, so he's aiight in my book.

Yep yep, chop chop. Inherited a deficit, balanced the budget, left a SURPLUS. Good stuff.

Notice how people say PEOPLE OF NEW MEXICO, rather than New Mexicans? Anyhoo, THOSE people must have AGREED that it was good stuff, because Gary Johnson breezed to reelection as a "red" governor of a"blue" state, despite vetoing over 750 spending bills...more than any governor (or president) in the nation.

 

[cheapseats]

...His lack of familiarity with Austrian Economics doesn't suggest to me that he would be very good for the American economy.

Gary Johnson inherited a deficit, balanced the budget, AND LEFT A SURPLUS. In eight years, in a term-limit state.

Werks fer me.

...there's no way in hell I'm voting for the man.

Duly noted.

The Board ostensibly has nearly 40,000 Members. It stands to Reason that many many many of them...as well as who-knows-how-many Visitors...have NOT yet read threads about Gary Johnson on the Ron Paul Forums (latterly Liberty Forest).

People who post favorably about Gary Johnson would logically keep trying to reach/persuade Others to consider Gary Johnson..."only" because Gary Johnson DID snag the Libertarian Party nomination that Ron Paul declined to pursue, which means Gary Johnson WILL be on the November ballot.

That should not be construed as still trying to persuade YOU, it having been duly noted that "no way in hell" will you vote for him.

So. There is no good reason for you or anyone else who has already declared that they will NOT vote for Gary Johnson to keep insinuating their "no way in hell" into the conversation, UNLESS you/they feel obliged to try to persuade Others to NOT vote for Gary Johnson.

IF RON PAUL LOSES THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION . . . are you (and others who have already declared that they will not vote for Gary Johnson) seriously going to campaign for people to NOT vote for Gary Johnson? And to do WHAT instead, pray tell? Abstain? Vote for Romney or Obama?

Writing-in a candidate where write-ins are not recorded is certainly one's prerogative, and bully for them if it well serves their emotions. Only be clear that it does NOT serve Liberty.

 

[enoch150]

he was put in the race as a way to distract from Ron Paul and try to draw support away from him. This selfish man should have ran for the senate in New Mexico where he could have done some good and built up his reputation within the party before running for President.

In as much as I agree that it would have been better if Johnson had run for Senate (and Schiff would have been better off running for Governor, for that matter), it is obviously not correct to say that Johnson was trying to draw support away from Paul. Johnson dropped out before the primaries began and urged his supporters to vote for Paul. If his only purpose was to take votes away from Paul, he would have stayed in the race. You can't even claim Johnson was taking early money away from Paul, since Paul had the donor lists from his 2007 race while Johnson had basically nothing outside of New Mexico.

My general view is: I'll support any candidate who supports less government and the degree of my support is proportional to how much that candidate wants to shrink the government. I don't believe Johnson is disingenuous about his desire for less government, even if he supports a bit more of it than I would prefer.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Yet you can't show me a shred of evidence that states he is against sound money or non-intervention.

He's always upheld his oath and followed the law of the land.

I'm still waiting for SOMEONE to show me some evidence. This must be my 20th request.

Sadly, many in our movement are easily duped by snakes like Johnson. They don't understand how important sound money and non-intervention are.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

How ironic. Claiming to have a grasp of monetary policy and your tag pays homage to Schiff. You do realize Schiff is not an economist, is not a scholar of the Austrian school, and lost his clients a significant amount of money?

Further, you talk about intellectualism when you so called "followers of the Austrian school" have been grouping Hayek, Rothbard, Ron Paul, as having the same thoughts on economics? Complete bunk. The thing that most binds them together is a distrust for the central bank. They approached the tax issue differently. They differed on so many levels yet you all claim to be experts and can't even recognize it. The way they'd remove it was different among them. In terms of social issues, Rothbard wanted open borders. He was pro-choice.

You're all up your own ass. Self-righteous, self proclaimed intellectual know-it-alls. Yet, once again, nothing to back up your knowledge and nothing to support any of your accusations.

For me, this has become less of a "support GJ if Ron isn't in the race" argument to "I want to shut you up because you make baseless claims left and right."

Fact of the matter is it's not required GJ have read every Austrian scholar. He upholds his oath and follows the law and doesn't go beyond the authority of his office. That's all that's required and he's one of the few people in the last century that's actually done it.

Yes you can easily tell GJ doesn't have a firm grasp of monetary policy.

Rockandrollsouls is free to start GJforums.

I agree with Travylr, GJ is an intellectual lightweight and a joke of a candidate. I'll pass

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Exactly. And guess what? It doesn't even matter to these self-proclaimed, self righteous idiots here. They are still making wild claims that GJ supports the drug war, RAISED taxes, and supports the fed.

Still, no one has posted one single shred of evidence to support those absurd claims. I'm still waiting.

They are like kicking and screaming children. It is absolutely pointless to try and reason with them. They simply need their Ron-Paul painted binky to settle down.

Outside the political junkie bubble, including LIBERTARIAN among the time-honored DEMOCRAT and REPUBLICAN options is quite new.

And very WELCOME...theoretically.

There are different ELITES and different ways of being ELITIST.






Yep yep, chop chop. Inherited a deficit, balanced the budget, left a SURPLUS. Good stuff.

Notice how people say PEOPLE OF NEW MEXICO, rather than New Mexicans? Anyhoo, THOSE people must have AGREED that it was good stuff, because Gary Johnson breezed to reelection as a "red" governor of a"blue" state, despite vetoing over 750 spending bills...more than any governor (or president) in the nation.