Gary Johnson Judge Napolitano on Gary Johnson at Freedom Fest 2012

[Nathan Hale]

I didn't come here for any movement; I came here for Ron Paul and the issues he campaigned on. I came here because I am sick of the bullshit. I'm not interested in joining any movement to blindly get behind whoever they spit forward. Rand Paul or Gary Johnson, whoever the 'movement' decides to get behind, I refuse to follow if I think they suck. And to be frank, Gary Johnson sucks. But who cares, I'm just one guy right? Well, look around. I'm not the only one who think GJ sucks.

I'll leave when this forum starts being "liberty forest" again, but right now it's about Ron Paul.

Nobody's asking you to lockstep with "the movement" - but respect that in order for anything to ever happen politically (which is required in order to change the bullshit that you are so sick of), people need to compromise between themselves in order to elect like-minded candidates to office. That's what "the movement" is. Perhaps Gary isn't your cup of tea - but respect that while many in this movement don't like him, many in this movement DO like him. And since there isn't an alternative, why don't you let those who like him gather in peace.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Wren is exactly what's wrong with what this movement has become. I've been at this for decades and we were pumping GJ for governor before president and he did the job. Wren, where were you? What were you doing? Just like the neocons hijacked the republican party, the "new freedom movement" has hijacked the old. This didn't begin with Ron Paul. He became the figurehead for his extreme consistency in congress, but the liberty movement was never solely Ron Paul.

THIS! Libertarianism wasn't born in 2007. If you got in a time machine and told a libertarian in 2003 that in 2012 supporters of Gary Johnson and supporters of Ron Paul would be in a flame war with each other over who was the better Presidential candidate, they'd laugh you out of the room....that is, if they didn't die of shock upon hearing that two longtime libertarian celebrities were major players in the 2012 election.

 

[Nathan Hale]

I am NOBP. However I think getting Johnson in the debates would be a good thing. There are a lot of GOP mot satisfied with Romney. If GJ gets in the debates by some miracle they won't be able to completely take it out on us when Romney gets spanked.

NOBP is cool - just do us a favor and say "Gary Johnson" if you get polled, so he can get in the debates.

 

[Wren]

Nobody's asking you to lockstep with "the movement" - but respect that in order for anything to ever happen politically (which is required in order to change the bullshit that you are so sick of), people need to compromise between themselves in order to elect like-minded candidates to office. That's what "the movement" is. Perhaps Gary isn't your cup of tea - but respect that while many in this movement don't like him, many in this movement DO like him. And since there isn't an alternative, why don't you let those who like him gather in peace.

As long as these remain the "ron paul forums" I will continue to voice my opposition to Gary and people like you who dare insult those who wish to write in Ron Paul instead. Take it to your Gary Johnson forums if you want to have peace.

 

[TheTexan]

THIS! Libertarianism wasn't born in 2007.

Can you show me a libertarian in major office before 2007 other than Ron Paul? And by libertarian, I mean the principles, not the party.

 

[jmdrake]

I sincerely hope once Tampa is done Ron Paul will endorse Gary Johnson and the senseless infighting will cease. Then again when Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin that didn't really slow down the infighting any.

 

[TheTexan]

I sincerely hope once Tampa is done Ron Paul will endorse Gary Johnson and the senseless infighting will cease. Then again when Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin that didn't really slow down the infighting any.

Some of it really can't be called infighting. Many of the big-L fanatics here have latched on to this movement but don't actually understand the core principles. That's called co-opting, not infighting.

 

[jmdrake]

As long as these remain the "ron paul forums" I will continue to voice my opposition to Gary and people like you who dare insult those who wish to write in Ron Paul instead. Take it to your Gary Johnson forums if you want to have peace.

So when Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin in 2008 did you voice your opposition to Baldwin just because the name of this place was still "RonPaulForums"? And Nathan Hale didn't insult you or anyone else who wants to write in Ron Paul. Quit making this needlessly into an "us versus them" thing.

 

[TheTexan]

Quit making this needlessly into an "us versus them" thing.

It is what it is. I call it like I see it.

 

[jmdrake]

Some of it really can't be called infighting. Many of the big-L fanatics here have latched on to this movement but don't actually understand the core principles. That's called co-opting, not infighting.

Speaking only for myself, I'm not a "big-L fanatic". In 2008 I went with constitutional party candidate Chuck Baldwin. I did not write in Ron Paul. And while Ron Paul endorsed Baldwin, even he had just kept silent I would have come to the same decision. It's not about being against core principles. It's realizing that when I watch the returns on election night I know write in votes won't even be mentioned. Ron could get 1 million write ins and it won't matter. This isn't about Gary Johnson getting elected. I know that's not possible. This isn't "voting for the lesser of two (or three) evils" as some falsely claim. For me it's simply about making sure that nobody can mistake my non vote for Mitt Romney or Barack Obama as me being "lazy" or "apathetic" or any of the myriad other reasons that some people simply don't go out and vote and wouldn't go out and vote even if Ron Paul was actually on the ballot. For those who see this differently, fine. I can respect that. I wish the respect just went both ways.

 

[jmdrake]

It is what it is. I call it like I see it.

Then please get some new glasses.

 

[TheTexan]

Speaking only for myself, I'm not a "big-L fanatic". In 2008 I went with constitutional party candidate Chuck Baldwin. I did not write in Ron Paul. And while Ron Paul endorsed Baldwin, even he had just kept silent I would have come to the same decision. It's not about being against core principles. It's realizing that when I watch the returns on election night I know write in votes won't even be mentioned. Ron could get 1 million write ins and it won't matter. This isn't about Gary Johnson getting elected. I know that's not possible. This isn't "voting for the lesser of two (or three) evils" as some falsely claim. For me it's simply about making sure that nobody can mistake my non vote for Mitt Romney or Barack Obama as me being "lazy" or "apathetic" or any of the myriad other reasons that some people simply don't go out and vote and wouldn't go out and vote even if Ron Paul was actually on the ballot. For those who see this differently, fine. I can respect that. I wish the respect just went both ways.

That's a rational reason for voting for Johnson, and I'm fine with that. It's the people who put Johnson on Ron's pedestal, and compare them as equals, that gets on my nerves. Those people either don't get it, and should just leave, or are being flat out dishonest.

 

[TheTexan]

Then please get some new glasses.

I hate to break it to you, but this whole movement is "us vs them." If you think it's anything else, you're still living in a dream land.

 

[Wren]

So when Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin in 2008 did you voice your opposition to Baldwin just because the name of this place was still "RonPaulForums"? And Nathan Hale didn't insult you or anyone else who wants to write in Ron Paul. Quit making this needlessly into an "us versus them" thing.

I wasnt even here in 2008, so baldwin is irrelevant. I dont vote based on who Ron Paul decides to endorse, but if Ron Paul endorsed a candidate, and since these are the RON PAUL forums, that candidate should be allowed to be discussed. RP did not endorse GJ; hence why he's an opposing candidate. Nathan likes to actively campaign here for Johnson and calls people who write in Ron Paul "morons"

 

[jmdrake]

That's a rational reason for voting for Johnson, and I'm fine with that. It's the people who put Johnson on Ron's pedestal, and compare them as equals, that gets on my nerves. Those people either don't get it, and should just leave, or are being flat out dishonest.

I haven't seen that, but I haven't read every post at RPF either. FTR I was in the "Gary Johnson can't win" camp before he or Ron announced they would run for president due to GJ's position on abortion. (I disagree with it. But beyond that you can't win a GOP primary with it).

I hate to break it to you, but this whole movement is "us vs them." If you think it's anything else, you're still living in a dream land.

Except for when some of us get mistaken for some of them and get shot with friendly fire. I've been part of us long enough to see that happen.

 

[jmdrake]

I wasnt even here in 2008, so baldwin is irrelevant. I dont vote based on who Ron Paul decides to endorse, but if Ron Paul endorsed a candidate, and since these are the RON PAUL forums, that candidate should be allowed to be discussed. RP did not endorse GJ; hence why he's an opposing candidate. Nathan likes to actively campaign here for Johnson and calls people who write in Ron Paul "morons"

Movement history is relevant whether you were here for it or not. And while I don't expect you to vote for someone based on who Ron Paul endorses, I think civility isn't too much to ask. Further prior to Ron Paul endorsing Chuck Baldwin, he did what's known as his "joint endorsement" of Baldwin, Nader and McKinney. (Bob Barr was invited to that conference but declined because Bob is a douche). Thus Ron Paul endorsed the concept of people voting for third party candidates that might not be 100% in line with Ron Paul as a way to register a protest vote. Now again, you don't have to agree to that, but civility to the concept is warranted. Further Nathan hasn't called anyone "moron" in this thread. I'm not saying he didn't in other threads, but I'd have to see the context. Some in the "Ron Paul write in" crowd have indeed been morons for the way they treat others who are simply following a strategy Ron Paul laid out in 2008.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

I like how you conveniently ignored my evidence showing you lie like a dog. I guess you can't refute GJ supporting sound money when it comes straight from his mouth

Anyway, I'll first begin by reminding you Ron is a conservative, not a libertarian. His approach to nearly all things is more conservative than libertarian. Secondly, what office are we talking about here? Congress? Presidencies? What? I'd argue Ron was in the right place at the right time...the country was fed up with Bush and what republicans had become, and here's a figure in the national debates talking about something drastically different by seriously wanting to end the war and going back to fiscal responsibility. He was the only bread-and butter conservative running for the highest office in a while, so why wouldn't those of us disaffected from our own party support him? I'll say it again, Ron certainly didn't spawn libertarianism or traditional conservatism, but he was able to bring it to a larger audience with the timing of his 2008 presidential run. There's a reason.

But I will argue some strong conservatives in office were GJ and Mark Sanford in recent years and there were many before and at the same time as Ron as well. Ron has always been the most outspoken, the most polarizing, and in many ways it has both help and hurt him, but he never WAS libertarianism/conservatism. That was US. Those who voted these candidates into office, those who contributed to them, and those of you that latched onto the guys we put into the limelight. Yes, that's what I said. Ron's been in office for many, many years. And only recently have people, like Wren who has admitted this a couple of pages back, found Ron and come here.

Can you show me a libertarian in major office before 2007 other than Ron Paul? And by libertarian, I mean the principles, not the party.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Yep. I can't believe how many people have forgotten Ron has endorsed candidates so far to the left of him, simply because he understands the military industrial complex and the banking cartel must be the first to go before we have any real change, and that's where we can align with others.

But then again, wren and bxm weren't even here in 2007/2008

Movement history is relevant whether you were here for it or not. And while I don't expect you to vote for someone based on who Ron Paul endorses, I think civility isn't too much to ask. Further prior to Ron Paul endorsing Chuck Baldwin, he did what's known as his "joint endorsement" of Baldwin, Nader and McKinney. (Bob Barr was invited to that conference but declined because Bob is a douche). Thus Ron Paul endorsed the concept of people voting for third party candidates that might not be 100% in line with Ron Paul as a way to register a protest vote. Now again, you don't have to agree to that, but civility to the concept is warranted. Further Nathan hasn't called anyone "moron" in this thread. I'm not saying he didn't in other threads, but I'd have to see the context. Some in the "Ron Paul write in" crowd have indeed been morons for the way they treat others who are simply following a strategy Ron Paul laid out in 2008.

 

[TheTexan]

I like how you conveniently ignored my evidence showing you lie like a dog.

Hmm... k? No idea what you're talking about

I guess you can't refute GJ supporting sound money when it comes straight from his mouth

I already have. GJ said in no uncertain terms that he blames the failure of Bretton Woods on the fact that the currency was a "gold standard."

If I have to spell out to you how that means GJ does NOT support sound money... then, fuck, man, go read a book or something.

Anyway, I'll first begin by reminding you Ron is a conservative, not a libertarian. His approach to nearly all things is more conservative than libertarian.

Haha. No. This is how I know you're full of shit. You can't tell the difference.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Keep lying, buddy. Anyone here can watch the video link I posted where Gary says he would sign any legislation supporting sound money, INCLUDING competing currencies, and also states he understands why we should have commodity money and how our dollar has been devalued due to the current system.

You simply have an axe to grind. You've gone at it with members here who have been well established supporters of RP and liberty, including myself, NathanHale, and Anaconda. Most of everything you've posted has been railing against GJ. Please show me one piece of something where he's said he doesn't support sound money, because that video is just one of money that proves he does, and also supports ending the fed.

Bloody sick of you and the "new trolls" coming out and hijacking this movement. I was emptying my pockets for Paul and the liberty movement decades ago before you joined this board. And maybe even before you were born. What have you done aside from bashing other candidates on this board? I'd really love to know.

Hmm... k? No idea what you're talking about



I already have. GJ said in no uncertain terms that he blames the failure of Bretton Woods on the fact that the currency was a "gold standard."

If I have to spell out to you how that means GJ does NOT support sound money... then, fuck, man, go read a book or something.



Haha. No. This is how I know you're full of shit. You can't tell the difference.