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

[realtonygoodwin]

oookay. FYI, I was over at DP for the last election, and came over here to RPF for this one. I have donated financially to the campaign, co-organized a meet-up group, handed out DVDs, talked numerous people into voting for Ron Paul, among other things. Unfortunately, that is about all I was able to do due to my job. But I gave all I could, even to the point where it strained my marriage. You don't know me, don't act like you do.

I don't consider GJ to be a liberty candidate, and if you do, that is your business, but this seems like an inappropriate place for it. You don't order a Baconater at Burger King...you go to Wendy's.

 

[V3n]

Iowa's State Convention is this Saturday. We still have to fight for EVERY delegate we can to restore the party. That is Ron Paul's plan and this is Ron Paul Forums.

Any GJ propaganda that takes away support from Iowa at this crucial time (such as telling people "it's over" when it's NOT) is divisive.

Iowa is just one example. Until Tampa there are a lot more fights that will take place and we need every RON PAUL supporter supporting RON PAUL and fighting for those delegate positions.

 

[JohnAshman]

And I likewise do not know where you got yours. I, however, have posted the various places from which I have gotten my info and you have not posted from whence you got yours, so my ignorance is rather less surprising than yours. I can find no numbers for any years which show the NM parasites stealing more than they spent. If you can find some numbers contradicting me, by all means post them and we can discuss them. This will be the second time I have made this invitation in this thread.

Look in your own graphs. At least 6 of those years had tax revenue (due to economic growth) surpassing expenditures (due to vetos). In the 2000s we had recessions, turmoil, 9/11, so it appears that tax revenue didn't match expenditures, though I believe the budget was "balanced" in that projected expenditures were less than projected income. That doesn't always come to pass. So let's say he had 6 ACTUAL balanced budgets and 7-8 projected ones. He says 8. He's not the type to lie.

 

[JohnAshman]

oookay. FYI, I was over at DP for the last election, and came over here to RPF for this one. I have donated financially to the campaign, co-organized a meet-up group, handed out DVDs, talked numerous people into voting for Ron Paul, among other things. Unfortunately, that is about all I was able to do due to my job. But I gave all I could, even to the point where it strained my marriage. You don't know me, don't act like you do.

I don't consider GJ to be a liberty candidate, and if you do, that is your business, but this seems like an inappropriate place for it. You don't order a Baconater at Burger King...you go to Wendy's.

Okay, how do you feel that Ron Paul is more of a liberty candidate than Johnson?

Is it that Ron is anti-abortion? Or anti-immigration? or anti-flag-burning? Or anti-gay marriage/pro-DADT, or.......???

 

[cheapseats]

Iowa's State Convention is this Saturday. We still have to fight for EVERY delegate we can to restore the party. That is Ron Paul's plan and this is Ron Paul Forums.

Any GJ propaganda that takes away support from Iowa at this crucial time (such as telling people "it's over" when it's NOT) is divisive.

Iowa is just one example. Until Tampa there are a lot more fights that will take place and we need every RON PAUL supporter supporting RON PAUL and fighting for those delegate positions.

HOW does galvanizing support for a third-party bid impact the infamous Delegate Strategy AT ALL?

Are you DARING to suggest that it is Gary Johnson "trolling" and not RAND PAUL'S ENDORSEMENT OF MITT ROMNEY that is taking some wind outta Delegate Strategy sails?

 

[newyearsrevolution08]

I am so glad this is still the RON PAUL FORUMS

Gary would make a great VP under Dr. Ron Paul, that is about as much support he will receive from me in 2012.

Ron earned my vote and will get it and no this fight is not over yet and don't get why all the gary folks think the rEVOLution is just that easy to redirect towards another guy especially Gary.

Seriously we are going to prop up another party and then have 3 parties to have to attempt to defeat. Do you think the LP will stand strong for real deal libertarian values? People focus on party and not on the candidate him or herself. I would rather have 2 parties versus 3 especially knowing how fast they can take a movement from us. Anyone remember the tea party? how liberty minded is that. Ask a so called tea party patriot their opinion on ron paul and you will see my point.

REMOVE THE PARTIES

GET BACK TO THE REPUBLIC AND FOLLOWING THE CONSTITUTION

 

[V3n]

HOW does galvanizing support for a third-party bid impact the infamous Delegate Strategy AT ALL?

Someone from Iowa very excited to go to the state convention:
"Before I go, let me see what's going on online.."
Opens Ron Paul Forums.
cheapseats: "ron paul's run IS OVER." (don't get mad, that's not a direct quote)
"Bummer. Guess I won't go then."
Iowan stays home, never becomes a delegate.

Are you DARING to suggest that it is Gary Johnson "trolling" and not RAND PAUL'S ENDORSEMENT OF MITT ROMNEY that is taking some wind outta Delegate Strategy sails?

It's not an either/or circumstance. They are both factors, but at least Rand Paul isn't coming on RON PAUL FORUMS everyday plugging MITT ROMNEY; but there are members plugging other OPPOSING candidates.

 

[JohnAshman]

"Pro-life, closed borders conservative Constitutionalist libertarian."

That's not a libertarian. You need to change that to:

"Neo-Con"

Libertarians believe in freedom of movement and the movement was founded by "pro-choice" people.

Aside from this, closed borders is NOT constitutional. Not at all. Only states may close their borders, not the Feds.

Immigration is not a delegated power in the Constitution. Never was.

 

[JohnAshman]

Gary would make a great VP under Dr. Ron Paul, that is about as much support he will receive from me in 2012.

You mean Ron would make a great VP for Gary, given Gary is the far more experienced candidate.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

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?

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.

Answer: Obviously I have not made it clear. My dilemma is, I do not know how to make it any clearer. Does anyone else have any ideas?

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

People didn't so much address these problems, as throw them out there speculatively. Certainly the tax revenue went up largely due to the state having a larger economy on which to feed. The tax rates for the most part did not go down. Some did. I could tell you which ones. Would you like me to?

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.

1) Is there anyone else here who thinks I need to do more to confirm my numbers? I feel like I sufficiently explained why I think them to accurate, pending refutation from someone abler an smarter such as rockandrollsouls. Am I way off base in that feeling?
2) Here you just restate again that you think these numbers -- the best and only and "official" numbers which I have procured for you and presented in an easy-to-understand way -- that these numbers are false, discredited, unconfirmed, and unaccredited. I have asked you to just provide some better numbers, since you are so certain these numbers are so completely wrong.
3) I don't know what record you think you know of which would contradict the budget numbers of the State of New Mexico.

...you'd think people would be smart enough to research it...

Indeed. Or at least, you'd hope. I would hope also, and encourage you to just look up the numbers. I gave you all the links. The tables are not hard to read.

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.

I do not know why you think that. You seem very angry at me, but I am not sure why.

As I said, go ahead and support Gary Johnson, I think that's good. I am also all for you brainstorming for ways to help Gary Johnson on the Ron Paul Forums; I'm not one of those telling you to leave.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

I don't care how much you gave and I your sob story doesn't effect me. Fact of the matter is you called me out for dividing the liberty movement when I've given more of everything than you, whether that's due to the time you have or your job or whatever it is, I've contributed more and you say I am dividing the liberty movement?! Those are fighting words, so keep your mouth shut. You don't know ME, and if you're going to make such a bullheaded statement I'm going for the throat.

Anyway...

Wendy's is closed for good. I see it from the street, you have to pull up to the drive thru for the reality.

Just remember, when asked who Ron supported before he committed to running for president, the name "Gary Johnson" came out of his mouth. For a person that has never compromised and never endorsed someone he didn't believe in, Ron must really be out of it for saying that at the time, huh? Was that a lapse of judgment?

And I'm not going to say if I agree or disagree with Ron/Rands strategy to compromise now in favor of fighting at a later day, but for someone who prides himself so much on principle how do you defend Ron for staying quiet while his son went and endorsed Romney. Ron definitely wasn't out of the loop on that. If it would have severely bothered him, you know Rand wouldn't have done it. So Ron is definitely keeping his mouth shut this one time....and that doesn't exactly jive with your definition of "liberty candidate" yet you're supporting this compromised campaign? Still?!

It remains to be seen if Rand/Ron will have an impact in 2016 and beyond. For all we know, they could have been fooled this one time so we are all complacent, and whatever leverage was promised to them down the line may not even be there in the future. Or it could be (though I never trust the establishment.) But you're still supporting that campaign?

oookay. FYI, I was over at DP for the last election, and came over here to RPF for this one. I have donated financially to the campaign, co-organized a meet-up group, handed out DVDs, talked numerous people into voting for Ron Paul, among other things. Unfortunately, that is about all I was able to do due to my job. But I gave all I could, even to the point where it strained my marriage. You don't know me, don't act like you do.

I don't consider GJ to be a liberty candidate, and if you do, that is your business, but this seems like an inappropriate place for it. You don't order a Baconater at Burger King...you go to Wendy's.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

@ Helmuth; because you lie, or you're just plain too stupid to understand those numbers.

It's a fact budget numbers include predetermined liabilities. It's a fact tax revenue is affected by an increase in the tax base, population growth, and the Laffer curve. That's not speculative, it's proven.

Yet, you choose to ignore all of those factors, which can be mathematically plugged into an accurate regression model if you wanted to actually QUANTIFY it, and instead look at it this way.

"Revenue went up. Therefore, Gary Johnson must have increased taxes." Not only is that incredibly flawed logic for a number of reasons, including those I stated above, you can look at the bills he signed and his record (which has been verified) and you will quickly see he NEVER AUTHORIZED A TAX INCREASE. So now you have a number of things clearly showing you your reasoning is beyond flawed, yet you're still trumpeting an evidently flawed, fabricated story.

PLEASE show me the bill stating a tax would increase and if GJ signed it into law. Not one person on your side of the argument has provided this information yet.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

A delegate for RP that isn't in touch with the campaign or state campaign HQ probably shouldn't be a delegate...they'd be a bit out of the loop, no? Delegates are constantly updated, particularly with strategy. Your fictional scenario will remain fictional. Poor example....

Someone from Iowa very excited to go to the state convention:
"Before I go, let me see what's going on online.."
Opens Ron Paul Forums.
cheapseats: "ron paul's run IS OVER." (don't get mad, that's not a direct quote)
"Bummer. Guess I won't go then."
Iowan stays home, never becomes a delegate.



It's not an either/or circumstance. They are both factors, but at least Rand Paul isn't coming on RON PAUL FORUMS everyday plugging MITT ROMNEY; but there are members plugging other OPPOSING candidates.

 

[atomicsink]

Gary Johnson has as solid a record as Ron Paul's. I think people who like one and hate the other are the personality cult types.

 

[realtonygoodwin]

Okay, how do you feel that Ron Paul is more of a liberty candidate than Johnson?

Is it that Ron is anti-abortion? Or anti-immigration? or anti-flag-burning? Or anti-gay marriage/pro-DADT, or.......???

Ron's stance on life, foreign policy, and illegal immigration are three main things that make him better than Johnson.

"Pro-life, closed borders conservative Constitutionalist libertarian."

That's not a libertarian. You need to change that to:

"Neo-Con"

Libertarians believe in freedom of movement and the movement was founded by "pro-choice" people.

Aside from this, closed borders is NOT constitutional. Not at all. Only states may close their borders, not the Feds.

Immigration is not a delegated power in the Constitution. Never was.

Immigration control is part of our national security, which is a legitimate function of the Federal Government.

A neocon wants to spread American ideals through force overseas and engage in nation-building. I am neither of those.

Being pro-choice is antithetical to liberty.

That is all from me for today.

 

[JohnAshman]

3) I don't know what record you think you know of which would contradict the budget numbers of the State of New Mexico.

The problem is that you don't understand economics, nor accounting, apparently, or are deliberately being deceptive.

Your own graphs show that tax revenue surpassed expenses.

And tax revenue can go up year after year without a tax raise, and in fact, does the same thing with most tax CUTS.

Apparently you don't understand that you can have 300,000 people moving into the state, that people and businesses begin to make more money, that 20% of $1000 is more than 25% of $500

So I recommend going to college, taking some basic accounting and economics course, then come back and you'll understand your own graphs.

 

[JohnAshman]

Ron's stance on life, foreign policy, and illegal immigration are three main things that make him better than Johnson.

Of course, if you're a neo-con!

Immigration control is part of our national security, which is a legitimate function of the Federal Government.

Show me that phrase in the Constitution. Shall I quote Thomas Jefferson for you? Do you know that immigraton was brought up at the Constitutional convention and the topic was NOT whether immigration should be a federal power, but how to treat them with respect to government office.

A neocon wants to spread American ideals through force overseas and engage in nation-building. I am neither of those.

Well you're not a constitutional conservative, let alone a constitutional libertarian, that's for sure.

Being pro-choice is antithetical to liberty..

You know how silly that sounds, right? "I you want freedom, you can't let people choose!!!!" Got it!

 

[atomicsink]

Ron's stance on life, foreign policy, and illegal immigration are three main things that make him better than Johnson.

You like Paul better than Johnson, that's great, I do to. But still, with Paul not in the general Johnson becomes the clear best choice. All that matters is Obama vs. Romney vs. Johnson - how any Ron Paul supporter could NOT vote for Johnson in the general is beyond me.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

I've already addressed your stubborn lies.
1. Ron Paul has left abortion as a state issue. For someone that's so pro-life, I'm surprised you're not offended he'd let California kill while letting a state like, say Texas for this scenario, remain pro life. Further, GJ has supported legislation, at the state level, banning different forms of abortion. Further, Ron has remained silent on abortion related stem cell research, leaving it to the states. Again, not saying this is right or wrong, but for someone who is pro-life, I'd imagine most pro-lifers are pro-life at all levels, not on a state by state basis.

2. Gary Johnson does not support unjust wars. Just like Ron, and Ron has said this, if the nation wants to go to war, even if it was Iraq, he would have been less infuriated if congress took a vote on it like it should. Gary Johnson would only go to war with a declaration and does not support unconstitutional invasions. His belief in humanitarian efforts does not make him unconstitutional or wrong on the issue. He would still require a vote.

3. They do not differ much on illegal immigration. Both support legal immigration only and would not continue to support illegal immigration. Both also support removing benefits and incentives that lead illegal aliens into this country. Basically, both support legal immigration and want to reduce the incentives that lead to illegal immigration. However, how they would address current illegal aliens differs. Johnson wants to streamline LEGAL immigration and recognizes we cannot ship all illegal immigrants out of the country, so he came out and suggested we just register them and streamline it (catching flak for that.) Ron has not said what he would do with those already here, though he HAS said on stage it is not practical to ship them all back to their countries. Where is the huge difference here?

I'm eagerly awaiting on your comments.

Ron's stance on life, foreign policy, and illegal immigration are three main things that make him better than Johnson.



Immigration control is part of our national security, which is a legitimate function of the Federal Government.

A neocon wants to spread American ideals through force overseas and engage in nation-building. I am neither of those.

Being pro-choice is antithetical to liberty.

That is all from me for today.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

The sad thing is he'll never comprehend your post. It's like talking to a brick wall. I'm still waiting for him to show me those tax rates he so adamantly believes GJ increased, and promised he could prove it to me! I guess he's still looking!

The problem is that you don't understand economics, nor accounting, apparently, or are deliberately being deceptive.

Your own graphs show that tax revenue surpassed expenses.

And tax revenue can go up year after year without a tax raise, and in fact, does the same thing with most tax CUTS.

Apparently you don't understand that you can have 300,000 people moving into the state, that people and businesses begin to make more money, that 20% of $1000 is more than 25% of $500

So I recommend going to college, taking some basic accounting and economics course, then come back and you'll understand your own graphs.