Moved posts about Gary Johnson candidacy

[cheapseats]

I think the 'Gary Johnson doesn't represent me and does nothing for me' part just isn't getting through in this conversation. Why on earth WOULD I vote for him?

Oh, people are WIDE-SCREEN that Gary Johnson will not be getting your vote.

You find Gary Johnson "squishy" and unlikeable, and that's fine. His views don't jive with yours, perfectly understandable. That's what makes horse races.

But to suggest that a ROMNEY presidency with Ron Paul cooling his jets as second fiddle is somehow SUPERIOR to a Gary Johnson presidency is effin' TWISTED.

Gary Johnson may be "neither here nor there" in YOUR worldview. And his chance of winning is SLIMMER than Ron Paul's.

But he WILL be on the November ballot, which is VERY here & now.

 

[sailingaway]

Gary Johnson may be "neither here nor there" in YOUR worldview. And his chance of winning is SLIMMER than Ron Paul's.

But he WILL be on the November ballot, which is VERY here & now.

so will someone from the green party and a bunch of others I don't like. If you LIKE Gary, obviously you should vote for him.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Not trying to harp on you, but still doesn't make sense to me. GJ acted nearly as Ron Paul spoke as governor. Romney has supported tyranny in multiple forms and would be in a position to do so as president, yet you'd vote for him if they nullified Ron's voice by making him VP, a useless position.

So GJ cuts taxes, balances budgets, supports individual liberty....yet you'll vote for the candidate that supports the NDAA, regulating the internet, and foreign wars?

And I'm positive Ron would not accept the VP slot. He knows it doesn't come with any influence, and I'm pretty sure he would be sick at the thought such a move would be used to gain his supporters votes to put a man in office that will continue foreign wars, the secrecy of the fed, and violation of the constitution.

Ron said "no-way" to endorsing Romney, so why would he run with him...

I don't know that Ron would accept the slot. But if he did, I'd be confident he would be independent because of his 30 year record. I would be voting for Ron, not Romney. I'd get a 'Ron Paul for VP 2012' bumper sticker made up.

Johnson is neither here nor there, I view him as a squishy candidate, and he isn't a real option to the two major parties. I would certainly vote for him despite that if he represented my views, but he doesn't.

I don't think Ron will be VP to Romney, but I'd vote for him if he were, because that would be better than the alternative and I'd be voting for the voice to be heard on a bigger stage of someone I actively believe in: Ron Paul.

Whether Ron Paul were running, as President or as VP or not, I simply wouldn't be interested in Johnson.

 

[sailingaway]

I don't think it will happen so I really think it is moot, but with one or other member of the war party going to win, I'd think having Ron as VP would make it better and Gary's not going to impact anything, plus he does nothing for me. You state your conclusions of his actions. He does not work from principles, he never used his governorship to spotlight or lead a fight for civil liberties, his cost benefit approach to me is completely without moral justification and ignores right and wrong, he just isn't for me.

 

[Wooden Indian]

Not trying to harp on you, but still doesn't make sense to me. GJ acted nearly as Ron Paul spoke as governor. Romney has supported tyranny in multiple forms and would be in a position to do so as president, yet you'd vote for him if they nullified Ron's voice by making him VP, a useless position.

So GJ cuts taxes, balances budgets, supports individual liberty....yet you'll vote for the candidate that supports the NDAA, regulating the internet, and foreign wars?

And I'm positive Ron would not accept the VP slot. He knows it doesn't come with any influence, and I'm pretty sure he would be sick at the thought such a move would be used to gain his supporters votes to put a man in office that will continue foreign wars, the secrecy of the fed, and violation of the constitution.

Ron said "no-way" to endorsing Romney, so why would he run with him...

I couldn't have said it better myself. I do hope must supporters of liberty are on the same train of thought.

 

[sailingaway]

I am going to edit the gary johnson discussion out to opposing candidates, it is derailing the thread.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Then you should edit the Mitt Romney discussion as well. You've given so many members trouble for saying they'd consider GJ, yet here you are trumpeting your support for Mitt so long as he has some "liberty guy" on the ticket. It's pretty disgusting. Do you remember the rant you went on saying we should never form a coalition and their should be no comprise?

Well, here you are.

 

[cheapseats]

I am going to edit the gary johnson discussion out to opposing candidates, it is derailing the thread.

It says this thread was "Started by cheapseats, Today".

That is THOROUGHLY FALSE. Perhaps it is an error that you would like to fix, or must I now be wary of people posting shit in my name as well as watchful for DISAPPEARED posts?

 

[KingNothing]

Johnson is neither here nor there, I view him as a squishy candidate, and he isn't a real option to the two major parties. I would certainly vote for him despite that if he represented my views, but he doesn't.

Johnson is as squishy as he is a real option -- which is to say, he's absolutely neither of those things.

That the man vetoed basically everything in his state, and supports ending the War on Drugs, would make him the best presidential candidate not named Ron Paul since..... Coolidge?

 

[sailingaway]

Johnson is as squishy as he is a real option -- which is to say, he's absolutely neither of those things.

That the man vetoed basically everything in his state, and supports ending the War on Drugs, would make him the best presidential candidate not named Ron Paul since..... Coolidge?

He's squishy the way I analyze things which is on his decision making process... but I'm going to move these posts with the others. I have no problem with there being a discussion of Johnson but it doesn't belong here.

 

[sailingaway]

It says this thread was "Started by cheapseats, Today".

That is THOROUGHLY FALSE. Perhaps it is an error that you would like to fix, or must I now be wary of people posting shit in my name as well as watchful for DISAPPEARED posts?

that is the way the forum is set up. It also says these are moved posts. To the other guy, I don't support Mitt, I would be supporting Ron. However, it is highly unlikely to happen. Regardless, I would still not vote for Johnson. I am going to vote for Ron Paul. My selection is between writing him in, or voting for him if he is on the ballot. I would vote for him on the ballot given the choice, even if he were VP. But it is outrageously unlikely to happen.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

How were they not on topic? There is talk of voting for Romney, an opposing candidate, if Ron is a VP. Calling out the hypocrisy that is voting for a dictator when many have bad mouthed GJ is completely relevant.

You're talking about voting for an opposing candidate/dictator here, yet the same people willing to do that bash other liberty candidates. It's disgusting and sick. If you're so easily co-opted just because Ron COULD be nominated to the ballot, you obviously don't care about the cause of liberty enough.

Voting for a dictator that has the name association with RP does not make him any less of a dictator and is further a vote for tyranny.

And I don't care if she's a moderator, she's given me and others a ton of speeches and grief about "don't form coalitions," bashing other possible liberty candidates (not just GJ) and here she is appeasing the establishment by stating she'd vote for Romney.

Hell, if any moderator here would come out and say they would vote for Romney why are they a mod on RPFs?!!

Just remember, many of us have been here since before the last election, fighting for liberty. You and SailingAway show up after the last election, and you just very recently, and you're going to preach to me?! Don't even try to act like a vote for Romney is EVER acceptable, and I'll be damned if the work and soul I've put into freedom will be coopted by some weak-spined moderator.

A moderator is supposed to ensure that topics, stay on-topic. Those posts weren't related to the topic at hand and in the wrong forum, so she put them in the right one... That's what a moderator is supposed to do to ensure that topics don't derail into something that the readers didn't click on the topic to read.

And seriously, the way some here get so butt-hurt over the wya the owners and mods choose to moderate their own forum has become pretty absurd. It's not up to you what flies and what doesn't fly with them, nor should it be. This is private property with very specific goals to advance.

 

[sailingaway]

How were they not on topic? There is talk of voting for Romney, an opposing candidate, if Ron is a VP. Calling out the hypocrisy that is voting for a dictator when many have bad mouthed GJ is completely relevant.

You're talking about voting for an opposing candidate/dictator here, yet the same people willing to do that bash other liberty candidates. It's disgusting and sick. If you're so easily co-opted just because Ron COULD be nominated to the ballot, you obviously don't care about the cause of liberty enough.

Voting for a dictator that has the name association with RP does not make him any less of a dictator and is further a vote for tyranny.

And I don't care if she's a moderator, she's given me and others a ton of speeches and grief about "don't form coalitions," bashing other possible liberty candidates (not just GJ) and here she is appeasing the establishment by stating she'd vote for Romney.

Hell, if any moderator here would come out and say they would vote for Romney why are they a mod on RPFs?!!

no, you are trying to pimp your candidate, whom you consider a liberty candidate, in a forum with more viewers because people like the guy whose forum it is. I specifically stated I wanted our delegates to nominate Ron from the floor as a PRESIDENTIAL candidate, not VP, BECAUSE I knew Romney is not going to back Ron. All the rest was the merest hypothetical, but Ron as VP to someone identical to whomever will win, is a plus on the reality that would exist otherwise, to me. Johnson is not a plus at all, to me. You should vote for him. I won't try to persuade you otherwise. But I am entitled to vote for the guy whose forum I was posting in.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Yep, undermine the liberty movement. Vote for someone that supported NDAA, unconstitutional wars, government mandated health care, higher taxes, and someone that would have supported legislation that could have shut down this very forum.

Fuck you, and fuck everyone that is voting for candidates that will take MY freedom from me. I said it last election cycle when many here bent over for Obama, and I'll say it now for Romney.

I can be kind and understanding, but not when it comes to group think that put people in power that will violate my rights. You should be ashamed.

IF Ron Paul were nominated as VP, and HE accepted, then I would vote for them.
But, the only reason I would vote for Romney would be because Ron Paul "accepted" the nomination and ran on the ticket.
That would say all I needed to know, since the only reason I'm in this is to see Ron/Us win this.

But as sailingaway stated, why not nominate him for President, he would get to speak, and who knows, the non-romney delegates just might give him a shot. Even if not, he would get to speak unedited.

 

[atomicsink]

I think it's fantastic that he is attending, we need more unity. If we can't even support Gary Johnson then we are so fractional that this whole endeavor is pointless. I don't agree with Gary Johnson 100%, but then again the same goes for Ron Paul. If voters required 100% then the winning candidate in a race would get about 1% of the vote.

 

[atomicsink]

This is a great thing, we need solidarity not divide and conquer.

 

[Sam I am]

I don't believe that somebody who supports mass genocide can be pro-liberty.

I haven't looked much into Gary Johnson that much, but could you inform me how and where has he supported mass genocide?

 

[atomicsink]

I haven't looked much into Gary Johnson that much, but could you inform me how and where has he supported mass genocide?

Some people think voluntary abortions are mass genocide. Don't bother arguing with them, no one has ever changed their mind on the abortion debate.

 

[pahs1994]

Some people think voluntary abortions are mass genocide. Don't bother arguing with them, no one has ever changed their mind on the abortion debate.

except Romney

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Wile we are on the subject I was hoping someone could explain to me why they don't like GJ. I really need to understand this. And please let the reason be something more then 'he is not Ron Paul'.

I feel like im missing something about GJ and no one is telling me what it is.

I really need you to explain this dislike of GJ. Honestly. If something I wrong that I don't know about send me a link... I have to know what It is I'm missing about him.

Can someone please tell me why all the hate for GJ??? Did I miss some kind of glaring defect???

Deja vu, all over again. Still no answers to your questions? I can tell you in one word: abortion.

More detailed responses:

Prepare to be amazed. The only differences between Johnson and Paul is that Johnson is pro-choice, and isn't as strongly-anti-war-sounding as Paul (after all, he was a governor, so he never needed to campaign on foreign policy).
...

Despite his relative support for Paul, Johnson and the Texas congressman differ on a number of issues - particularly when it comes to social issues, where Johnson tends to be more liberal. Johnson supports abortion rights, the legalization of marijuana, and gay marriage; he also differs with Paul on foreign policy with regards to Israel and opposes a fence along America's border with Mexico.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...ohnson-launches-libertarian-presidential-bid/

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.

A lot of the hating is primarily related to the abortion issue. It's a little ironic since Gary supported a late term abortion ban when he was Governor, which is more than most politicians are willing to do.