Johnson: The GOP Is a Dying Party. That’s Why I’m Running Against Trump

[r3volution 3.0]

Again, The foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty cannot be accepted or rejected piece meal.

The foundation that provides for the philosophy of Individual Liberty must either be accepted or rejected in whole with its beneifits in order to possess and enjoy its benefits fully.

But, yes. Agreed. Priorities.

Do you agree that the issues where Gary takes a libertarian stance (e.g, Fed, bailouts, wars, PATRIOT Act) are higher priorities than the CRA?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Do you agree that the issues where Gary takes a libertarian stance (e.g, Fed, bailouts, wars, PATRIOT Act) are higher priorities than the CRA?

That's a redundant question. And a loaded one at that. The CRA isn't the root term of controversy. Not even if the illusion is inserted and the discussion is re-directed to project the absurd notion that it is the root term of controversy, it isn't.

Government must be limited in power if Individual Liberty, the Minority of One, is to be safeguarded. And the words Limited for Liberty used to mean something around here. Johnson's position is patently contrary to the foundation that provides for that protection. His position is contrary to the foundation that defines our Republic. Johnson's position is consistent with the principles of a Democracy. We are not a Democracy.

And there is a rather critical distinction between the two...

A Democracy: The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man. This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy.

A Republic: Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial.

Now. When asked a question that projected the notion that a solution that was based on the fundamental principles of a Democracy was preferable to a solution that was premised upon the fundamental principles that define our Republic, Johnson's answer was this...

Johnson: That would be my contention, yes

 

[timosman]

Edward Bernays would be so proud.

If you need to name names.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

That's a redundant question. And a loaded one at that. The CRA isn't the root term of controversy. Not even if the illusion is inserted and the discussion is re-directed to project the absurd notion that it is the root term of controversy, it isn't.

It's a straightforward question which you for some reason chose to give a long and irrelevant non-answer.

Either you think businesses being forced to serve customers is worse than the Fed, the wars, etc, or you don't.

It's a yes or a no.

If/when you want to give an answer, I'm all ears.

 

[Natural Citizen]

If/when you want to give an answer, I'm all ears.

No, it's a straight-forward, redundant, question that is meant to project spin and to avoid the critical nature of the root issue. That's what it was.

My postings here in the thread are spot on. And I've yet to see you even acknowledge any of it in a meaningful way. You're dipping and you're spinning. That's a coward's role.

Why do you hate freedom, r3volution 3.0? That's my question for you. You (and others) are promoting a man whose position is contrary to the primary foundation for Individual Liberty itself. And you're promoting him in the name of Liberty, no less. Normally, I wouldn't care. But you're promoting a philosophy that is patently contrary to the principles of Individual Liberty in the name of Liberty. That takes some balls, right there.

 

[euphemia]

I have no intention of voting for Gary Johnson, and I will do everything I can to make sure people know the truth about him. He is not a libertarian. He is in this for the money he can make off his stock in pot. He has no interest in free markets. He is authoritarian, and he didn't limit the government in New Mexico when he had the chance.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

You (and others) are promoting a man whose position is contrary to the primary foundation for Individual Liberty itself.

I'm promoting a candidate who takes the libertarian position on the most important issues, as an alternative to the two major party candidates who take the libertarian position on none of the important issues. A large movement toward liberty (as represented by Gary) is much better than a large movement further away from liberty (as represented by Trumpllary). I don't know how you can fail to understand this elementary concept.

 

[euphemia]

I'm promoting a candidate who takes the libertarian position on the most important issues,

Um, no, he doesn't. He says what he has to say to get people to vote for him. He did none of it as governor of New Mexico, which should be one of the easier states to downsize. They only have a little over two million people. It's not like he was mayor of Los Angeles. I guess that open borders thing didn't work so well. The government of New Mexico was bigger when he left office than when he entered it.

 

[Natural Citizen]

End of the day, there is absolutely no action or declaration by the government that is patently contrary to the primary foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty, regardless of whether or not Johnson and his supporters think there is, that could legitimately be deemed valid morally or constitutionally. Again...Limited for Liberty used to mean something around here. Now we're promoting a man whose position is patently contrary to the foundation for the very principles of Individual Liberty itself and these days it seems like it's just a catch phrase that some friends toss out there whenever the whim suits them.

 

[Krugminator2]

I have no intention of voting for Gary Johnson, and I will do everything I can to make sure people know the truth about him. He is not a libertarian. He is in this for the money he can make off his stock in pot. He has no interest in free markets. He is authoritarian, and he didn't limit the government in New Mexico when he had the chance.

Nobody brings that up. But he used his notoriety as the Libertarian Party candidate to lend his name to two pump and dump schemes involving marijuana companies.

He got paid 515,000 shares of stock called Cannabis Sativa which has no assets or revenues. He left the company at the beginning of the year. Subsequently the stock went up by a 1000% in a paid promotion which would have meant his stake in a worthless company was worth $1.7 million if dumped, which someone should ask him about.
He was also involved with a company called Medican Enterprises which people should look at a chart of that stock. Anyone with a functioning brain can read the SEC filings. http://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=10628010

If he ever got close to being a real candidate, this would immediately become an issue. It would be similar to Trump University or the Ron Paul Newsletters. It doesn't become an issue until he is taken seriously. The he becomes a total joke like Wesley Clark. https://www.google.com/webhp?source...2&ie=UTF-8#q=wesley+clark+penny+stock+general

 

[RJ Liberty]

I have no intention of voting for Gary Johnson, and I will do everything I can to make sure people know the truth about him. He is not a libertarian. He is in this for the money he can make off his stock in pot. He has no interest in free markets. He is authoritarian, and he didn't limit the government in New Mexico when he had the chance.

He had more than 700 vetoes to his record in NM, during a time when the NM legislature was controlled by Democrats. Those 700 vetoes were more vetoes than all other governors combined, Euphemia. It's ridiculous that you blame Johnson for the increase in spending in NM during his years in office when he made a name for himself for resisting that spending.

 

[euphemia]

He left office with over 20% of New Mexicans on food stamps. Do you want to know how many states have more than that? Just one. Mississippi. Johnson left that mess for the current governor to deal with.

New Mexico only has about 2 million people. How hard is it to implement libertarian principles when you have such a small population? If he can't convince the New Mexio state legislature, how in the world do you think he will convince Congress?

Johnson is in politics so he can manipulate markets. That makes him as bad, or worse, than Hillary Clinton. If you think he will promote liberty principles over his own interests, keep right on thinking it. He won't be elected.

 

[RJ Liberty]

New Mexico only has about 2 million people. How hard is it to implement libertarian principles when you have

...both legislatures controlled by Democrats? Pretty tough!

Oh, I see what this is about!

[Melania Trump] was beautiful and gracious, and she is a very accomplished public speaker. Graceful walk on stage. Please compare that with schlumpy Michelle Obama.

...you're a Trumpster!

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Oh, I see what this is about!

...you're a Trumpster!

She's been Trumpin for months now.

 

[RJ Liberty]

She's been Trumpin for months now.

Yeah, I didn't catch that until now. This one's more sneaky, talking about "libertarian principles" while selling out to the Trumpster Dumpster. It wasn't until I saw her writing about how beautiful and glamorous the poised Melania Trump was during her plagiarized speech that I realized this one's no friend to the liberty movement.

 

[euphemia]

She's been Trumpin for months now.

Nope. I just make a point to listen to what people say and watch what they do. I have not seen or read a single thing about Gary Johnson that appeals to me or would convince me he is the man to sit in the Oval Office. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. He is not a libertarian.

Of the people who will be on the ballot in all 50 states, there isn't anyone who has the policy, experience, and level of leadership we need. People have been asleep at the wheel and now it's election time and we are in a mess. There is no way a good candidate will be on the ballot in all 50 states because we have been trying to get blood out of the turnip that is the Republican Party. They were never going to have Ron Paul stand for president, and I think we should have seen that back in 2008. We could have been doing something different, but we didn't. Now we are stuck. There is no way in the world I am going to be suckered into voting for Gary Johnson. He doesn't measure up on any level.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I realized this one's no friend to the liberty movement.

What I'm realizing now is that the Liberty movement is no friend of Liberty.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Nope. I just make a point to listen to what people say and watch what they do. I have not seen or read a single thing about Gary Johnson that appeals to me or would convince me he is the man to sit in the Oval Office. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. He is not a libertarian.

Of the people who will be on the ballot in all 50 states, there isn't anyone who has the policy, experience, and level of leadership we need. People have been asleep at the wheel and now it's election time and we are in a mess. There is no way a good candidate will be on the ballot in all 50 states because we have been trying to get blood out of the turnip that is the Republican Party. They were never going to have Ron Paul stand for president, and I think we should have seen that back in 2008. We could have been doing something different, but we didn't. Now we are stuck. There is no way in the world I am going to be suckered into voting for Gary Johnson. He doesn't measure up on any level.

Don't worry yourself with these hacks. You've done a great job around the board placing things into the correct and more relevant perspective where others actively seek to mask the relevant and more critical terms of controversy. All they have is ad-hominem and redundant spin in defense of their campaign of coercion against the fundamental foundation for the principles of individual Liberty. That's how the game of divide and conquer works. They're promoting someone whose position on the foundation for the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty is patenly contrary to the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty itself. And they're promoting the screwery in the name of Liberty, no less. Their fruits are all we need to know about them in order to measure them precisely. Johnson, by his own admission, will point the barrel of a government gun at an Individual who values that fundamental foundation. So that's what/who we're working with here. That's how bad virtue is eroding around here. The gradual erosion of virtue is likely the greatest and most unrecognized threat to Individual Liberty today. Yet here it is. And it's live for all to see.

 

[euphemia]

It wasn't until I saw her writing about how beautiful and glamorous the poised Melania Trump was during her plagiarized speech that I realized this one's no friend to the liberty movement.

Michelle Obama plagarized her speech, but you all are too caught up in the MSM to even notice. It's time to move on to more important things. As it happens, I read Michelle's Master's thesis, and I may well be the only one on these boards who did. You won't find it online now. It was removed once the insomniacs of America (the only way you could read it) figured out what a petty, small-minded, unintelligent woman she is.

 

[Anti-Neocon]

Don't worry yourself with these hacks. All they have is ad-hominem. They're promoting someone whose position on the foundation for the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty is patenly contrary to the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty. And they're promoting the screwery in the name of Liberty, no less.

A lot of people love to talk about how much they love liberty, yet they have no practical ways to move the country in a more libertarian direction.

The country is moving slowly down a slippery slope toward tyranny, and as it does, the Overton window of "acceptable thought" moves in a more anti-liberty direction where our ideas are seen as more and more radical.

There has never been a more openly anti-liberty major candidate than Donald Trump (Hillary Clinton would maybe be 2nd place), and yet when we have a candidate that can at least act as a placeholder to get a way more libertarian party in the mainstream, the "true libertarians" are so concerned with purity that they don't realize they are letting the nation slip deeper into tyranny as they bide their time waiting for a perfect candidate.

The question we should be asking ourselves is: "how do we practically end up with the most pro-liberty nation?" All arguments toward a specific course of action should be in response to that question. I really fail to see at all how "don't support anyone, wait for the next Ron Paul" ends up being the answer to that question, when we are 4 months away from electing a literal tyrant, with nothing even close to libertarian in the public dialogue.

PS: beware of concern troll Trumpkins! They claim not to like anything about Trump but they take every turn they can to defend him while doing their best to quash any alternatives that are remotely libertarian.