Gary Johnson It's time to throw our full weight behind Gary Johnson.

[BenIsForRon]

I think I should start another thread for brainstorming on how to get Gary Johnson more support, this is clearly going to be the bickering thread.

All the people trashing Gary right now won't be on board until they see him getting closer to 15%.

 

[MrWalker]

I'm not saying anyone should get behind gary, just don't trash him.
i don't think he is our enemy.

Seems like theres a lot of rethorical strawmen created right now for Gary Johnson. If you critizise him or his background you are automatically a "trasher".

Remember that as long as Ron Paul hasnt officially withdrawn his campaign for the nomination, Gary Johnson is still an opposing candidate.

Thats what this sub-forum is about, right? Opposing candidates?

 

[BenIsForRon]

Seems like theres a lot of rethorical strawmen created right now for Gary Johnson. If you critizise him or his background you are automatically a "trasher".

Remember that as long as Ron Paul hasnt officially withdrawn his campaign for the nomination, Gary Johnson is still an opposing candidate.

Thats what this sub-forum is about, right? Opposing candidates?

This is a silly game of semantics. I'm sure that Ron Paul himself would want anyone that may support Johnson to go ahead and begin doing so. Waiting until Romney is officially the nominee at the convention is silly.

Actually, I bet Ron Paul will vote for Gary come November.

 

[W_BRANDON]

I think I should start another thread for brainstorming on how to get Gary Johnson more support, this is clearly going to be the bickering thread.

I completely agree! You should start it here http://garyjohnsongrassroots.com/

See ya bye!

 

[JohnAshman]

Helmuth,


You seem to not notice that every year, the amount of government revenue exceeded its expenditures. Gross debt would be future obligations, all of which would be funded at a later time. Employee pensions, basically. But because he was willing to use his veto pen aggressively, he was able to make sure that the government could make its payments and pay its pensions without going into debt to do so.

You understand that if you buy a house, you just increased your debt, right? But at the same time, you've increased your wealth and ownershiop.

 

[JohnAshman]

He won't get closer to 15% until people stop bickering and start playing the long game.

 

[cheapseats]

Remember that as long as Ron Paul hasnt officially withdrawn his campaign for the nomination, Gary Johnson is still an opposing candidate.

Is Gary Johnson STILL an opposing candidate, now that Rand Paul confirmed in his endorsement of Mitt Romney that Ron Paul will not win the nomination?

Or is he STILL an Opposing Candidate in 2012, in light of RAND'S 2016 aspirations?

 

[newyearsrevolution08]

If you want to vote for Gary do so.

Hoping to get eveyone to hold hands, jumping both feet first ALL TOGETHER... good luck lol

My vote is for Ron Paul. There is no way I can throw away my vote unless I vote for someone other than MY candidate.

Gary is NOT my candidate nor the man who I agree with else I would be supporting HIM over Ron. Reason being, ron has never polled amazingly well but we all happily keep fighting for him. Gary has never made me feel the need to FIGHT for anything. That's just me though, everyone can vote the way THEY want to but I just hope we don't run around trying to FORCE people to think and vote how WE want them to because it just won't work.

I am writing in Ron Paul this time. I still remember when I "compromised" my vote with ron paul and voted for Chuck Baldwin. Many here and on the dailypaul did the same exact whereas others wrote him in or voted for whoever else they decided. I want my LAST VOTE when Ron Paul is running to be MY VOTE because I don't see a true statesman like Ron Paul coming around again in my lifetime sadly.

We are going to be electing politicians instead of statesmen but who knows maybe there is another "ron paul" statesman or woman out there, maybe its one of you? Only time will tell.

 

[cheapseats]

...My vote is for Ron Paul. There is no way I can throw away my vote unless I vote for someone other than MY candidate...

You'll be WRITING IN Ron Paul, then?

Certainly that is not throwing your vote away if YOU don't feel it is throwing your vote away. Only know that writing in Ron Paul does NOTHING to further Liberty, or even to register PROTEST.

 

[realtonygoodwin]

I think I should start another thread for brainstorming on how to get Gary Johnson more support, this is clearly going to be the bickering thread.

All the people trashing Gary right now won't be on board until they see him getting closer to 15%.

You are on the wrong website for this.

 

[cheapseats]

You are on the wrong website for this.

Originally Posted by realtonygoodwin
You guys think its us getting co-opted by the establishment...you don't realize that we are the ones co-opting them.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-Schiff-Show-talking-about-endorsement/page17

In the interest of NOT dividing the Liberty Moovement, would you personally perfer that Non Republicans leave Liberty Forest, or that they goose-step with Republicans?

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Helmuth,


You seem to not notice that every year, the amount of government revenue exceeded its expenditures.

Look at the actual numbers and tell me that's the case. The only way to make it work would be to use some sort of strange non-standard accounting. For instance, to add the insurance trust fund inlays in to general revenue. But you can't do that. That would be incorrect.

For example, in 1995 the NM budget was unbalanced. This is a fact on which both I and my many detractors agree, since they are saying that Mr. Johnson "inherited a deficit." Indeed he did. In 1995 general revenue was about 6,331,959,000, while expenditures were about 6,747,602,000. That means that the budget was unbalanced. Would you agree?

You can easily look up the numbers for every other year Gary Johnson was in office. In every case, the number for general revenue will be smaller than the number for expenditures. In no case will the number for general revenue be equal to or greater than the number for expenditures. Subtracting that state government's expenditures from its general revenue will always give a negative number. This means that the budget was always "in the red," as you put it. The state was "going into debt," as you put it. I don't know how to make this clearer. Have I made it clear?

 

[Travlyr]

It is the "new" "new" math. If you just say it enough times, then it becomes believable.

Facts don't really matter if you just say it enough times.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie." - Joseph Goebbels

 

[rockandrollsouls]

I, and others, have already addressed just a FEW problems that immediately discredit these graphs. 1) predetermined liabilities, such as pensions. 2) population growth or simply an increase in the tax base, leading to increased tax revenue. 3) The Laffer Curve

Long story short, I'll discredit you in one short paragraph. 1) The source is not accredited and we cannot confirm those numbers 2) You can't draw conclusions from those numbers for the reasons stated above 3) Gary Johnson's actual and verified record conflicts with the non-verifiable conclusions you are fabricating from those numbers.

You're just flat out wrong. Feel free to dislike him for a policy you disagree with, but don't fabricate a story that isn't true from numbers you clearly can't put into context.

This false story has spread through the forum long enough and you think people would be smart enough to research it and not listen to someone, like yourself, that tells them a fabricated story based on numbers he doesn't know how to interpret.

Here are my findings about Gary Johnson, reposted yet again. Sorry to be so repetitive, but I of course not everyone reads every thread, and since this thread is not going well -- I seem to be being misunderstood/hated -- it seems necessary.

No, he did not. It is important to realize this. qh4dotcom's statement above is not true. It is false.

• New Mexico's state government's spending went way up while Johnson was governor, from 4.4 billion annually to 7.7 billion annually. (see here)
  
  
• New Mexico's state government's taxes went way up while Johnson was governor. Total direct revenue increased from 5.3 billion to 6.6 billion (see here) . Or, according to a different measurement from a different site, tax revenue increased from 2.7 billion to 3.5 billion. (see here)
  
  
• New Mexico's state government's debt went way up while Johnson was governor. In fact, it tripled: from 1.82 billion to 4.6 billion. (see here)

More spending. More taxes. More debt.

So, there's his record. But, but, but, you say! But, he really shares our vision of liberty at heart, he just did a lousy job actually implementing it as governor. Well, here's his farewell State of the State Address, in which he explains to New Mexico the things which were important to him, the accomplishments of which he is most proud. Virtually all of which are various programs he has increased. Various spending he has increased. Various pork barrels, in other words, that he's rolled out for leviathan and its grateful parasites.

Here it is: http://www.stateline.org/live/details/speech?contentId=16108

So not only does he not walk the walk (which is what's important to me), he does not even talk the talk (in case that's what's important to any of you).

~~~

Another note: But, but, but, you say! But, this was the legislature's fault! Mr. Johnson was vetoing, vetoing, vetoing, as much as he could, but they were overriding him. It would have been tons worse if not for him.

Truth will contradict this theory. Mr. Johnson did veto many bills, but clearly not nearly enough. He did not veto appropriations bills. Those would have been the important ones to veto! He did not veto all the outrageous growth in the state government that was occurring during his tenure. In fact, as you can see from his address above, he took pride in much of this growth. He could have vetoed the cancerous growth. The debt. The taxes. The waste. He could have stopped it. But, either he had no desire to do so (this is what I think is the truth), or, the most charitable possibility is that he had the desire, but lacked the courage to do it.

What's more, New Mexico has the line item veto. Not only could he have vetoed budget bills outright, he could have crossed out billions of dollars of spending, line by line. Did he? No. His line item vetoing was weak, weak, weak. Paltry. Inconsequential. 27 million out of multi-billion dollar budgets.

Weak.

Fake.

 

[realtonygoodwin]

In the interest of NOT dividing the Liberty Moovement, would you personally perfer that Non Republicans leave Liberty Forest, or that they goose-step with Republicans?

You can be a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Independent voter, whatever. The Ron Paul Forums support Ron Paul. You and those like you are trying to divide the liberty movement by advocating supporting one of Ron Paul's competitors for President.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

I'm seriously interested in knowing the highest level math course you've ever completed during your schooling. Anyone who's been through a basic statistic class will tell you that you can't simply look at numbers and make an assumption. I'm making a strong guess both you and Travlyr never took a statistics class when you went to school.

 

[BenIsForRon]

You are on the wrong website for this.

Nope. This is the perfect site to gather support for Johnson. Ron Paul lost, so people like me will be naturally moving on to Johnson.

 

[cheapseats]

You can be a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Independent voter, whatever. The Ron Paul Forums support Ron Paul. You and those like you are trying to divide the liberty movement by advocating supporting one of Ron Paul's competitors for President.

Ron's Paul's flesh 'n blood RAND has endorsed Ron's CHIEF opponent, yes? YES...citing the sad reality that his first-choice Dad would NOT prevail in his candidacy. If you think it is MY supporting Gary Johnson and NOT Rand's endorsement of Romney that is splitting the Moovement, that would make ME more influential than Rand Paul. I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I think you're wrong (again).

THERE IS CONSENSUS that Ron Paul cannot win the GOP nomination, barring a miracle. Even if Romney were struck dead by one of Gary Johnson's lightning bolts, "betcha $10,000" that Ron Paul would STILL not get the nod.

Do you DISAGREE with the consensus, or are you holding out for a DOUBLE MIRACLE?

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Ron Paul's not in the race anymore. Everyone in his campaign has conceded it and left every support hung out to dry, simply leaving the donation line open, funneling money. You just can't accept it. Rand conceded. Jesse conceded a while ago. Doug conceded. Jack Hunter conceded. Have you even tried calling campaign HQ, because I have. Good luck getting through to them.

Supporting a liberty candidate actually on the ballot is NOT dividing the liberty movement. You go to the convention and try to work with a campaign that's told you to play nice and that we don't have the numbers. It's OVER for RPs campaign, and if you don't get that you're an idiot. You should have known when they refused to fight the corrupt system that was literally beating and throwing out our delegates.

And you've got a lot of gall to say what you said when you weren't even on here last time Ron ran. You joined a little over a year ago and obviously spent most of your time on the forum because you've got almost as many posts as me.

I maxed out to the Ron Paul campaign during BOTH election cycles, and funded PACs as much as a possibly could. What did YOU do? And you have the nerve to say I'm dividing the liberty movement? Watch your mouth, punk.

I gave absurd amounts of money, time, and support to the campaign BOTH election cycles only to have them slip out of both of them. The first because they were run by morons and the second because they were run by morons, cut a deal, and weren't willing to fight. Yet you somehow think Ron is still in this?

It's funny; most of the people that have been fighting for liberty well before this election cycle are willing to support GJ. The ones that actually got off their asses and did something. You were never one of those people. Travlyr and Helmuth were NEVER those people. You all sit behind your computer screens and spit philosophy at me.

Gary Johnson does stand for liberty and I'll be supporting him because he's actually fighting for it. Ron's not anymore and his campaign certainly isn't. Get a reality check.

You can be a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Independent voter, whatever. The Ron Paul Forums support Ron Paul. You and those like you are trying to divide the liberty movement by advocating supporting one of Ron Paul's competitors for President.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Just like last election cycle, instead of making a decision Ron and the campaign half assed it again, slyly ducking out while still leaving the donation ticker up to take people's money.

Ron personally asked GJ for his endorsement in 08, and before Ron entered the race he was asked who he supported for president, and he said Gary Johnson. If Ron supported Gary Johnson, why do other people here have such issue with him?

Nope. This is the perfect site to gather support for Johnson. Ron Paul lost, so people like me will be naturally moving on to Johnson.