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

[V3n]

Gary Johnson supporters, please click here:

 

[Yieu]

Jeez, some of you are crazy. You're never going to get 100% agreement with everybody. I'll say it again: Gary Johnson was a great conservative Governor. Probably better than any in the past half century.

Oops. I was trying to rep the post above this, but the mouse moved and the rep window for this post opened over top of the other one.

Just wanted to say I do not support Gary Johnson, and that I do agree with the following:

This would play right into GJ's strategy. This is what GJ banked on, for Ron Paul supporters to climb aboard once the RP ship goes down. I didn't like his [GJ] motives then and will not participate in helping this plan come to fruition. If GJ really cared about this movement, he would have locked arms with all of us, including RP, from the get-go. If I would have seen him as an ally and partner this whole time and not as a competitor, I would have no problems supporting him after Ron Paul officially drops out.

When it comes down to it, in the end, it comes down to this: Don't tell me what to do. I'll act as an individual and vote how I please.

I would have voted for Ron as an individual (not as a group), and I will likely write him in, knowing it is not counted.

 

[Sam I am]

I would love nothing more than to see a third person in the debates. It will be very healthy for our political system, no matter what your ideology

 

[cheapseats]

...Don't tell me what to do...

Damn straight.

Including don't tell people to put REPUBLICAN PARTY UNITY FIRST & TRUST RAND . . . or STFU.

Now, if debating issues and trying to persuade people constitutes TELLING PEOPLE WHAT TO DO, then this entire Liberty Forest thing is INAPPROPRIATE. Right?

 

[Respect38]

I'd rather stay in the Liberty Forest, thank you very much.

What would be the point of preaching to the choir?

 

[cheapseats]

I would love nothing more than to see a third person in the debates. It will be very healthy for our political system, no matter what your ideology

Exactly so.

 

[Yieu]

Damn straight.

Including don't tell people to put REPUBLICAN PARTY UNITY FIRST & TRUST RAND . . . or STFU.

Yes, don't tell me to put party unity before principle. I have no care for party unity.

Now, if debating issues and trying to persuade people constitutes TELLING PEOPLE WHAT TO DO, then this entire Liberty Forest thing is INAPPROPRIATE. Right?

That is not what I meant.

I meant don't tell me that now I "have" to vote for Gary Johnson because someone has a "master plan".

 

[helmuth_hubener]

He was a great governor.

When he was governor:

-- New Mexico's tax revenue went up
-- New Mexico's state spending went way up
-- New Mexico's state debt went way up

Given those three facts, I'm unsure in what sense Mr. Johnson was a "great governor" and whether that sense would be meaningful to me. This may be from a difference of priorities between you and I, or it could be simply an ignorance on my part. You see, my only political priority is freedom. Could you explain how people in New Mexico were more free in 2003 than in 1995?

A couple notes: New Mexico's governor has an extremely powerful line-item veto. Johnson could have used it. He could have vetoed billions upon billions from the budgets. He didn't. He could have also pardoned non-violent drug offenders and instructed law enforcement to stop prosecuting the so-called drug war. He didn't.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Gary Johnson inherited a deficit, balanced the budget, AND BEQUEATHED A SURPLUS.

Sorry, cheapseats, I think you are a victim of what we call "spin."

 

[Respect38]

Sorry, cheapseats, I think you are a victim of what we call "spin."

I have my doubts about this website. Where does it get its information?

I have heard nothing but good things from New Mexicans who were under Gary Johnson.

 

[Gray Seal]

I do not like the tired old philosophy of voting for the lesser of two evils. Between Ron Paul and Gary Johnson we do not have two evils. We have two goods. Ron Paul is solid on economics and Gary Johnson is weaker. On many issues Gary Johnson is on top of of the principles of smaller government and more freedom. Johnson is good. It is prudent to vote for a good candidate when one is available even if they do not measure up to the someone you prefer is not on the ballot.

We will not be seeing Ron Paul on the ballot ever again. If Ron Paul fails then those who believe in ideas, not the person, will find those candidates who are good.

 

[cheapseats]

Sorry, cheapseats, I think you are a victim of what we call "spin."

You have posted this shit before.

Gary Johnson was not a DICTATOR in New Mexico . . . that WORKS for me.

He was a "red" governor of a "blue" state. BLUE Lawmakers had their asses handed to them over 750 times (PLUS line-item vetoes) by a RED governor, into whom a BLUE electorate willingly and by a large margin INVESTED a second term.

Gary Johnson INHERITED A DEFICIT, BALANCED THE BUDGET & BEQUEATHED A SURPLUS.

He didn't SHRINK government as YOU would have done? Would YOU "just" go the full-on EXECUTIVE ORDER route to get 'er done?

Gary Johnson IS on the wrong side of Privatized Prisons. "Hopefully", that was a budget consideration and he can be persuaded by our APPALLING prison population statistics to flop-flip. "We'll see."

 

[rockandrollsouls]

So...even though everything he's ever done has been Constitutional and he's never violated an oath...he doesn't understand it?

Its not just that, its that I don't see him talk about the Constitution, at all really. I want a President that will try as hard as he can to stick to it 100%.

At a state level, its different because there is more leeway and its much smaller. I'll take another look at Gary before I vote but he doesn't seem to understand liberty or the Constitution like Ron or even someone like Justin Amash.

 

[V3n]

I'm sure he's a fine man and would make a fine President.

But this is RON PAUL FORUMS and despite what will happen in Tampa (which I still want to see play out) - Ron Paul's vision is to retake the Republican party. I support Ron Paul, and I support his vision. All this talk of throwing weight behind GJ, Libertarian party, does not support Ron Paul's vision, and therefore should be moved to Gary Johnson Forums.

Talking about him philosophically, or as an intellectual debate, I have not problem with, but trying to convince RPF members to support him, 'to throw our full weight behind him' is just divisive and not what this forum needs at this time.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

First and foremost Sailingaway is female. Secondly, Ron has bowed out of the race. He, his son, Doug, and the campaign has seceded the race. It's only a few stubborn people here that think we are going to pull some crazy upset at the convention. Even if we did, what legislature do we have to work with?

Finally, this discussion is under opposing candidates. Entirely valid discussion. The fact of the matter is Ron won't be on the ballot. GJ will be.

And you're absurd claim that I "bash" Ron Paul is insulting, untrue, and nonsensical. It's clearly attempt to try and discredit it, though you're not the first sore-loser supporter to do so. I've stated time and time again that I would absolutely love to vote for Paul if he were on the ballot. I stated time and time again I'd support him so long as he stayed in the race. I maxed out within the first week of him announcing and funneled a ton of money to PACS, likely more money than you and my doubters donated to Paul COMBINED. Additionally, I phonebanked and worked heavily at my local level, and have been mulling a political run. To infer I bash Ron Paul is DISGUSTING, IGNORANT, and FOOLISH.

Further, since Ron is not running, the best option FAR AND AWAY is Gary Johnson. I've not said he's the "cat's meow" but those slandering his name have yet to show me one piece of evidence confirming he would be an unconsitutional president. As governor, he's already made all of the right calls. Always balanced the budget, always vetoed spending, and never raised taxes. He's also the highest level of government official to ever call for drug legalization. He's stated he would sign a bill to end the fed if it crossed his desk.

I'm waiting for someone to show me one issue, with evidence, he's bad/wrong on. Instead, a rational individual can see the "haters" clearly dislike GJ simply because he's not RP.

And, I'll remind you the Libertarians were pushing for either GJ or Bill Still. Bill still wanted to maintain government programs and is against gold money. Remember that. Bill Still wasn't the libertarian.

Umm.. He is a mod for the RON PAUL FORUMS> Alot of us here don't want to hear the GJ garbage and view the lot trying to sway us a a bunch of shills and dualistically corrupted in that you were never here for Ron and always down-talking him and making GJ sound like the cat's meow. Ya'all can kiss my royal golden ass.

Rev9

 

[realtonygoodwin]

I'm not going to vote for a pro-death candidate.

Gary Johnson is both:

1. Pro-choice
2. Pro "humanitarian" wars.


No thanks. I would have supported him as a Senator, but not as President.

 

[sanssq]

Only the Liberty movement can get this guy to the 15% he needs to get in the national debates.

I think it's obvious we need to try, and there is nothing to lose from trying. Rand Paul and the national delegates are building goodwill for us in the Republican Party, so the rest of us need to refocus for the next 5 months on Gary Johnson. He's already at 8% nationally, we just need to add 7%. I think if we utilize all the tools we have for Dr. Paul, we can make this work.

So, what I want to hear from all of you is, if you agree, how do we get started? If you disagree, why?

Here's the daily show interview from last week. I think it proves that he's serious and ready to present a focused message to the American people.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-5-2012/gary-johnson

Can't support Gary J unless he chucks Roger Stone. The Neo-Cons are active and have compromised the Libertarian party.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

I'd also like to remind you of some things that chart can and likely does take into account, (the spending chart.) Predetermined liabilities. Money promised prior to Gary Johnsons term. Pensions, interest, welfare, etc. Things the governor cannot, himself, simply nullify, remove, or do away with. Their state data also takes into account local spending, something GJ doesn't have control over.

And that's assuming the data is even accurate. We've addressed this before. You see a chart with higher bars on the right side and make assumptions that simply may not be true.

Same criticisms for your public debt chart. Not to mention, we don't know how that public debt chart is calculated.

So long story short, Gary Johnson's record, and the legislation we can see that he actually signed, he didn't authorize increasing public debt or spending. We can look at the bills he signed and physically see this. Yet, you find a chart, (where we can't verify the data and we don't know how it's calculated) that may be the consequence of predetermined liabilities such as pensions, interest, etc, and claim that it's the consequence of Gary Johnson. Well, anyone that's worked in statistics or economics will tell you that you simply can't make that assumption. It's 100% wrong.

Sorry, cheapseats, I think you are a victim of what we call "spin."

 

[rockandrollsouls]

1. Perfectly fine in your opinion here
2. I don't get the bashing on GJ for the "humanitarian war" thing. He may not have even stationed us in Europe in WW2, so he definitely understands international affairs. Yet, there's nothing in the Constitution that prevents congress from voting on "War" for this purpose. Would I personally vote for for a military intervention to stop genocide? No, I wouldn't. But I can understand GJ's viewpoint here. It looks to be legal, it wouldn't be resource intensive, and it's an issue that transcends others as well.

You're talking about stopping mass genocide spurred by government, more than likely in third world countries. Easily hundreds of thousands of lives. It's entirely Constitutional for congress to vote on this type of war.

Consequently, GJ's position is not unconstitutional. You might not agree, but is entirely within the framework of the Constitution to vote on this.

I'm not going to vote for a pro-death candidate.

Gary Johnson is both:

1. Pro-choice
2. Pro "humanitarian" wars.


No thanks. I would have supported him as a Senator, but not as President.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I'm not going to vote for a pro-death candidate.

Gary Johnson is both:

1. Pro-choice

Methinks you have identified the root cause of the very strong responses here.

I need to know where Gary stands on gay marriage before I can make up my mind...