Gary Johnson Please consider Gary Johnson today

[Jeremy]

about as basically as any of the utility companies with a govt-granted monopoly.

The president appoints their board and their currency is nationalized. How is it any less private than another government organization? At least with FEMA, the US Post Office, etc. we have other services to use. And those are government organizations. Maybe it started as a private bank, but not so much now.

 

[Danke]

"... The United Nations is but a long range, international banking apparatus clearly set up for financial and economic profit by a small group of powerful One-World revolutionaries, hungry for profit and power. The One-World government leaders and their ever close bankers have now acquired full control of the money and credit machinery of the U.S. via the creation of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank." - Curtis Dall, Son-in-Law of F.D.R., 1936

Is that supposed to be the "League of Nations?"

 

[nasaal]

I agree with your position. Obviously Gary isn't Dr. Paul, but I believe he's MUCH better than the alternatives on the ballot. Paul write-in votes won't be counted in my state, so I see a vote for Johnson as a way to voice dissatisfaction (and actually be counted). The 5% number would be great, primarily just to give a more viable avenue for liberty supporters.

As I understand his platform, he supports defending Israel but would not follow them into a war that they initiated. He is also in favor of removing foreign aid to all countries including Israel. Again, not the ideal non-interventionist policy of Dr. Paul, but certainly a better option than others on the ballot. I'm certainly no Johnson expert though, so I could be wrong.

When it comes down to it, we should all vote the way we want to vote. If you want to vote for Dr. Paul on principle, do it. If you want to vote for Gary Johnson for the 5% goal, do it. I am seeing a lot of my friends considering Gary Johnson though, which is highly unusual for my die hard Democrats/Republican friends. Perhaps a very small sign of more open-minded times?

Gary Johnson bridges the gap between mainstream politics and hardline Libertarianism. He isn't a mainstream candidate, but he also isn't an extreme Libertarian. As he puts it, he is socially accepting and economically conservative. Whether you agree with it or not, that really is where pretty much everyone I know is. He bridges the gap for people to look into an independent party without them seeming to be extreme.

 

[The Magic Hoof]

Does anyone know the video I'm talking about?

 

[scottditzen]

5% is not that much, but enough to perhaps finally end the two party system as we know it. I want to write in Ron Paul. I did last time. Not this time. I'm voting for Gary Johnson and not just to help him get that 5% but that's a pretty good reason. My children are voting for Gary Johnson. Everyone I know who is fed up with the two party oligarchy and is willing to vote is on board. It is time to use the vote to accomplish something. Voting for Gary Johnson leaves my conscience clear as I am voting for someone I believe is better than the oligarchy has to offer and I will also hopefully help the Libertarian party break through a barrier.

Vote well my friends. That is the end of my sales pitch.

Voted for Gary Johnson. Although I was very tempted by the opportunity to write-in RP. No question if Paul was on the ballot it would be Ron Paul all the way.

 

[Travlyr]

Is that supposed to be the "League of Nations?"

Perhaps so. http://www.amazon.com/F-D-R-My-Expl...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223517377&sr=8-1

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?228913-Quotations-On-banking-money-freedom-and-liberty

 

[Mini-Me]

The president appoints their board and their currency is nationalized. How is it any less private than another government organization? At least with FEMA, the US Post Office, etc. we have other services to use. And those are government organizations. Maybe it started as a private bank, but not so much now.

It's privately owned, but as Jeremy says, it's publicly controlled. It's set up not as a government entity or a private entity, but as a "special purpose vehicle" for the federal government. It's a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" deal: The shareholders get their dividend, and Congress gets an infinite line of credit and the plausible deniability that it's not their fault it's being printed, because it's out of their control.

Please, anyone who thinks the Fed is a "private entity" needs to read this article right now. The Fed is a horrible, evil institution whose existence has easily enabled the endless expansion of the monetary base (and ultimately the money supply) that has destroyed our economy, but you MUST do your best to avoid attacking it on factually incorrect grounds, or people will write you off as soon as they hear/read some mainstream source eagerly pointing out an obvious mistake in your reasoning in a "common Fed myths" piece. Most ordinary people do not want to understand what's going on, and they'll look for any convenient excuse to keep trusting mainstream sources; avoid giving them that excuse by being as precise as you can be.

That said, Gary Johnson's assertion that "we own the Fed" is totally incorrect. Member banks own it, but the federal government's executive branch exerts majority control through its appointment of the Chairman (etc.). We the people neither own NOR control it, either directly or through our representatives in Congress.

For the record, I will probably still be voting for Gary Johnson today just to do my part to give the Libertarian Party slightly more exposure...which in my estimation is marginally more useful for the future than a Ron Paul write-in. I also can't imagine Ron Paul writing himself in (he's too modest), so I expect he'll be voting for Johnson as well. It doesn't really matter how any of us vote at this point though, since our voting bloc is utterly split and incapable of sending a unified message one way or another. I'd definitely write in Ron Paul if write-ins counted in my state (they don't) or Gary Johnson were running as an independent, but since his totals will also reflect on the Libertarian Party as a whole, that changes my outlook.

 

[Aeroneous]

Gary Johnson bridges the gap between mainstream politics and hardline Libertarianism. He isn't a mainstream candidate, but he also isn't an extreme Libertarian. As he puts it, he is socially accepting and economically conservative. Whether you agree with it or not, that really is where pretty much everyone I know is. He bridges the gap for people to look into an independent party without them seeming to be extreme.

Good points. I don't think it's all that unreasonable for liberty supporters to compromise a little bit and go with Gary Johnson if we're expecting others to compromise on their current opinions and come to the liberty side of things. I know a lot of people here are all-or-nothing, which is understandable, but I think Johnson is certainly better than the other alternatives in this presidential election. If I were to run for office it would be on a 100% liberty stance, but I don't have a problem voting for someone who is pretty close with only a couple conflicting views (especially when Ron Paul isn't really a viable option in my state).

 

[Danke]

Perhaps so. http://www.amazon.com/F-D-R-My-Expl...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223517377&sr=8-1

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?228913-Quotations-On-banking-money-freedom-and-liberty

Maybe it is United Nations, but the date of the book should read 1963, not 1936? Typo?

 

[Travlyr]

The Federal Reserve System is an unconstitutional system of monetary policy as well.

http://www.fame.org/HTM/Vieira_Edwin_To_Regulate_the_Value_of_Money_EV-006.HTM

 

[tttppp]

Double-posted by accident, but yeah, just see this quote, it's all I needed to know that Johnson is delusional and knows absolutely nothing about the Federal Reserve, the single most important issue. Not to mention his many foreign policy fails such as keeping Afghanistan bases, going after Joseph Kony, and that America has a God-given duty to kiss Israels ass and hold their hand even if it means a nuclear war destroying our planet.

The federal government is not obligated to listen to the fed. If the president wanted to control the fed, he could just like any other utility. I'm happy to hear to real reasons not to vote for him. But please none of this petty stuff.

 

[Meatwasp]

Ron Paul to the bitter end, then listen to the fat woman sing. Gary Johnson is not a libertarian. He is grafted twig of both parties

 

[The Magic Hoof]

Hey guys, there's this video I saw months ago about Gary Johnson. It was a few minutes long and started with this Libertarian guy (I think?) who was giving a speech about how Gary Johnson is NOT a Libertarian and he was asking how Johnson became the VP when he has these weird views on the federal reserve, then started quoting a speech Johnson gave at a town hall about the Fed... or something.

Does anyone have a link to that video?

I've looked for this forever and I can't find it. I want to watch it again before I go vote.

 

[Travlyr]

Maybe it is United Nations, but the date of the book should read 1963, not 1936? Typo?

Not sure, but it appears so. The paperback for sale at amazon says 1968.

 

[VIDEODROME]

I figure Gary would offer Ron Paul any cabinet position he wanted or even nominated as Fed Chairman.

 

[Danke]

Not sure, but it appears so. The paperback for sale at amazon says 1968.

Yeah, but it also says Second Edition: "Publisher: Christian Crusade; Second printing edition (1968)"

 

[Sematary]

So, I read all of the counter arguments about why some people would choose to not vote for Gary Johnson and I respect those opinions but I think there is something bigger at stake here than his foreign policy beliefs or his beliefs on the federal reserve. That bigger thing IS the two party system. It needs to be broken and the only way to do that is for Gary Johnson and the Libertarians to hit that magic 5% mark. Not that he's my first choice. Ron Paul is and always will be my first choice. But since my first option isn't on the ballot or even available as a write-in, I have to try and make my voice heard this way.
I can't even watch the election coverage. I'm just going to wait till tonight to find out which of the two talking heads that were foisted upon us will be screwing up the nation for another 4 years. :-(

 

[Travlyr]

Yeah, but it also says Second Edition: "Publisher: Christian Crusade; Second printing edition (1968)"

I don't know when the first publication was. I'm going with 1963 and the United Nations until further notice.

 

[angelatc]

Johnson isn't Paul, but the LP needs a certain threshold to qualify for certain things. I'm giving him my vote for that reason.

@ShaneEnochs - Even if I wasn't going to choose a president I'd still be voting - local elections are more important at this juncture anyway. Hint hint....

 

[angelatc]

Yeah, but it also says Second Edition: "Publisher: Christian Crusade; Second printing edition (1968)"

Second Printing doesn't equate to Second Edition. My guess is that this is correctly phrased as the second printing of the first edition. Where is Dorfsmith? We need him!!!