Gary Johnson If Gary Johnson got into the debates

[GeorgiaAvenger]

He would actually be a force one way or the other.

Would he pick a new VP candidate? Who? Somebody with credibility.

 

[trey4sports]

who knows. I hope he costs Mitt the election though.

 

[Aratus]

we've got three weeks to go

B4 i can profusely pen a paeon

of praise for gary johnson's

potus run despite its quixotic

nature of being, indeedy yes...

 

[Schifference]

he would be ignored just like he was in the RNC debates.

 

[Nathan Hale]

he would be ignored just like he was in the RNC debates.

Not when there's only three people on stage. If he actually gets into those debates (and there are a lot of powerful people who don't want to see that happen) it would be a total game-changer.

 

[JorgeStevenson]

Not when there's only three people on stage. If he actually gets into those debates (and there are a lot of powerful people who don't want to see that happen) it would be a total game-changer.

RP was more or less ignored, although when he chimed in it was great because he would just point out all the nonesense that was going on. Probably one of his better debates (Santorum, Gingrich, & Paul).

 

[Nathan Hale]

RP was more or less ignored, although when he chimed in it was great because he would just point out all the nonesense that was going on. Probably one of his better debates (Santorum, Gingrich, & Paul).

Even then it was 4 candidates. I know it sounds silly, but there is a big difference between 3 and 4. Think Ross Perot. Will he get equal time? Probably not - but keep in mind the Presidential debate format is not used to having a third person, so I think if he mans up and interjects he can get a lot of coverage.

 

[mczerone]

He would actually be a force one way or the other.

Would he pick a new VP candidate? Who? Somebody with credibility.

Judge Jim Grey has credibility. Probably more than Johnson himself does. And Johnson doesn't just get to "pick" a new VP - that was a decision made at the party convention back in May/June

 

[Revolution9]

Nothing would come of it..if it actually happened. He would buffoon his way through every question he was asked. I just don't have any faith in the chinless wonder. I believe he is a Rockefeller shill. You don't just waltz into the New Mexico governorship. Weapons research and drug routes are two of the main reasons that governorship is highly controlled by cabal interests..

Rev9

 

[jmdrake]

After seeing how badly Gary Johnson got manhandled on Fox when it comes to foreign policy, I'm not sure what good he could do in the debates. Really, Krauthammer ripped Gary a new one by pointing out the inconsistency of Gary being anti intervention when it comes to wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, but pro-intervention when it comes to Uganda. Really, someone should sit down with Gary and get him to rethink that. I'm still considering voting for him, but now I'm concerned that his inclusion in the debates could make a mockery of non-interventionist foreign policy.

 

[asurfaholic]

While id appreciate a different opinion in the debates (what's to debate between obama and romney?), I am not sure if I really want to see gj represent the ron paul positions. Im afraid he just doesn't get it. And that would do more damage than good.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

You are just a further example of the growing population that supports a person but doesn't understand the ideas.

Taking a stance for liberty isn't about the person. These aren't "Ron Paul" positions. We were fighting for this platform long before and will be long after Ron is gone.

I'd be lying if I told you I wasn't offended you said these were "Ron Paul positions." Cut the nonsense and understand liberty wasn't an idea birthed by Ron himself. If you want someone to represent "Ron Paul positions," he has the opportunity to run or endorse third party. The reason is obviously because of his son. So you can debate amongst yourselves what's more important there; Ron running, or Ron appeasing so Rand has a shot down the line.

While id appreciate a different opinion in the debates (what's to debate between obama and romney?), I am not sure if I really want to see gj represent the ron paul positions. Im afraid he just doesn't get it. And that would do more damage than good.

 

[Wren]

Not interested in seeing him in the debates, the guy is clueless. Johnson doesn't even understand the ethical and economic foundations of his *own* positions, which is the hallmark of the typical politician. The LP Candidate always has a dual mandate; One is to try to run to win, and the other is to try to be an evangelist for freedom.

 

[jmdrake]

Ron Paul positions is simply shorthand for liberty positions. I was a pretty strong "support Gary Johnson in the alternative" guy until I saw this.



Sorry, but that was just embarrassing. My fear is that Gary Johnson will be onstage talking about how we shouldn't have gone to war with Libya only to have Obama throw his own words back at him and say "Well Gary, by endorsing a strikeforce to take out the LRA you've basically endorsed my foreign policy. I might not be as aggressive as you like, but I think we have to be careful because most of the LRA soldiers are just kids who would escape if given half a chance."

You are just a further example of the growing population that supports a person but doesn't understand the ideas.

Taking a stance for liberty isn't about the person. These aren't "Ron Paul" positions. We were fighting for this platform long before and will be long after Ron is gone.

I'd be lying if I told you I wasn't offended you said these were "Ron Paul positions." Cut the nonsense and understand liberty wasn't an idea birthed by Ron himself. If you want someone to represent "Ron Paul positions," he has the opportunity to run or endorse third party. The reason is obviously because of his son. So you can debate amongst yourselves what's more important there; Ron running, or Ron appeasing so Rand has a shot down the line.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Two points to consider:

1. Yes, the Krauthammer exchange is cringe worthy - but Gary knows this too. It's like Ron Paul after he gets into cringe worthy exchanges - the next time around he's ready.
2. This entire concern is White People Problems. *IF* he gets into the debates he might get an awkward question (that's he's already had posed to him). We should be so lucky to have that problem!

 

[asurfaholic]

You are just a further example of the growing population that supports a person but doesn't understand the ideas.

Taking a stance for liberty isn't about the person. These aren't "Ron Paul" positions. We were fighting for this platform long before and will be long after Ron is gone.

I'd be lying if I told you I wasn't offended you said these were "Ron Paul positions." Cut the nonsense and understand liberty wasn't an idea birthed by Ron himself. If you want someone to represent "Ron Paul positions," he has the opportunity to run or endorse third party. The reason is obviously because of his son. So you can debate amongst yourselves what's more important there; Ron running, or Ron appeasing so Rand has a shot down the line.

Your focusing a bit much on one aspect of my post where I said Ron Paul positions. I agree liberty has more to do with one man, you are completely correct.

But I stand by the spirit of my post. Putting it clearly, I don't believe the Gary Johnson has a complete understanding of liberty as you and I understand it. As others have pointed out his foreign policy does not even come close to being consistant with limited govt and constitutional principles (stay OUT of foreign affairs). Another big one off the top of my head is his stance on drug legalization - if I understand he is for legalizing mj, but not other drugs? How about a consistant keep govt out of my life, or a consistant let govt fuck you in the ass. Not the nonsense that calls itself Gary Johnson. I want a pure message of liberty, and whether you admit it or not, gj is trying to ride the R.paul revolution to success, and the media will be quick to ridicule an inconsistent message and confused principles. And I sincerely believe giving the mic to someone who doesn't understand liberty will do more harm than good.

 

[Wren]

1. Yes, the Krauthammer exchange is cringe worthy - but Gary knows this too. It's like Ron Paul after he gets into cringe worthy exchanges - the next time around he's ready.

That's a shitty comparison. The only time Ron has ever made "cringe worthy" statements are only in regard to his wording to appease GOP voters. He's never made idiotic statements on national television that totally contradict his policies or worldview. Not even comparable, not by a long shot, so stop trying.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

You've just misrepresented a number of GJ's positions on the issues. What that shows me is you didn't even research them. And to claim he's trying to ride the "Ron Paul revolution to success," (which, I will mind you, was a grassroots revolution before it culminated with Ron in 2008) is nonsensical considering he was arguably the strongest conservative governor in the history of this country for 2 terms.

It's one thing to debate BXM or RonPaulHawaii on the details of the issues because they actually have a grasp of GJs platform, positions, and history. You don't have a background on any of that. I'm going to kindly ask you refrain from stoking a flame war until you actually research....you're just making a number of baseless claims.

Your focusing a bit much on one aspect of my post where I said Ron Paul positions. I agree liberty has more to do with one man, you are completely correct.

But I stand by the spirit of my post. Putting it clearly, I don't believe the Gary Johnson has a complete understanding of liberty as you and I understand it. As others have pointed out his foreign policy does not even come close to being consistant with limited govt and constitutional principles (stay OUT of foreign affairs). Another big one off the top of my head is his stance on drug legalization - if I understand he is for legalizing mj, but not other drugs? How about a consistant keep govt out of my life, or a consistant let govt fuck you in the ass. Not the nonsense that calls itself Gary Johnson. I want a pure message of liberty, and whether you admit it or not, gj is trying to ride the R.paul revolution to success, and the media will be quick to ridicule an inconsistent message and confused principles. And I sincerely believe giving the mic to someone who doesn't understand liberty will do more harm than good.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

So...Gary is out of line for signing off on a vote of Congress to, in short, go to war? That's the only Constitutional way to do it. He's not calling for an executive branch-ordered strike. He just said if congress voted for it in that situation he'd support it in that instance.

I can't say I agree with the stance of using war powers in instances of genocide but it WOULD be fully within the bounds of the Constitution and I do understand the rationale. Instances of genocide (assuming you do believe the Kony propaganda) is not something that is really addressed by any area of our original law, though we did develop letters of marque and reprisal which would fit in that "gray area."

Long story short, congress does have the authority to declare war. It would be within the confines of our constitution. I don't agree with using our troops to prevent genocide, but it is lawful.

Ron Paul positions is simply shorthand for liberty positions. I was a pretty strong "support Gary Johnson in the alternative" guy until I saw this.



Sorry, but that was just embarrassing. My fear is that Gary Johnson will be onstage talking about how we shouldn't have gone to war with Libya only to have Obama throw his own words back at him and say "Well Gary, by endorsing a strikeforce to take out the LRA you've basically endorsed my foreign policy. I might not be as aggressive as you like, but I think we have to be careful because most of the LRA soldiers are just kids who would escape if given half a chance."

 

[rockandrollsouls]

So you join the forum 2 years ago and you're more "righteous" than a guy who did a stellar job as governor for 2 terms? I question if you're even old enough to comprehend the positions considering you speak with words like "my bad" (are you one of the college know it all kids?) but you also quote Winston Churchill when denouncing GJ.

You quote a mass murderer...a tyrant...proudly and willingly, yet trash an individual who was never a tyrant during his tenure as governor. That's a double standard and that's called being a hypocrite.

Not interested in seeing him in the debates, the guy is clueless. Johnson doesn't even understand the ethical and economic foundations of his *own* positions, which is the hallmark of the typical politician. The LP Candidate always has a dual mandate; One is to try to run to win, and the other is to try to be an evangelist for freedom.