Please Stop the Gary Johnson Threads!

[cheapseats]

Discussing voting for Gary Johnson at this time is completely unnecessary and only serves to distract from electing Ron Paul.

Sez you, and X number of others . . . out of a Board Membership of nearly 40,000.

Others of us say it IS necessary, to the Liberty Moovement if not the Paul Family Dynasty.

Sooo, your "side" should rule the day, RIGHT?

"Discussing" #TrayvonMartin ad nauseam, THAT is "unnecessary and serves to distract from electing Ron Paul".

"Ranking & Summarizing American Presidencies", THAT is unnecessary and serves to distract from electing Ron Paul.

Discussing voting for Gary Johnson at this time actually weakens Ron Paul's chances, and Gary isn't going to win.

Gary Johnson is almost certainly not going to win the Presidency.

Ron Paul is almost certainly not going to win the Republican nomination, ergo the Presidency.

(I think he'da fared better running Third Party, but I and my ilk lost that argument.)

Therefore, discussing voting for Gary Johnson at this time actually hurts the collective chances of electing a liberty candidate as President.

So say you.

I say it does NOTHING to "the collective chances" of Ron Paul winning the GOP nod (ergo, the Presidency), and DOES further the "cause" of Liberty.

If you are recommending/advising/counseling that getting the Libertarian Party Nominee into the PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES, FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER does nothing toward election of liberty candidates, I say your advice is UNRELIABLE.

Enough said. It has been discussed (unnecessarily). Dragging it on does not help anyone, and does hurt all of us.

Sez you. I disagree. Therefore you are right, RIGHT?

Edit: By the way, these things were already said in other words in previous posts, an apt response would be to merely read those posts again.

By my reckoning, that means the debate is ALIVE.

Are ya comin' in like the ADULT IN THE ROOM, declaring "I don't care WHO started it, I'M finishing it!"?

Actually, do keep the discussion to this thread, with this thread title, if you must.

We have your permission?

 

[Yieu]

I'm just tired of the divisiveness he brings.

 

[cheapseats]

I'm just tired of the divisiveness he brings.

REPUBLICAN, one of thy other names is DIVISIVE.

DEMOCRAT, one of thy other names is DIVISIVE.

DIVIDE + DIVIDE = CONQUER. Which "side" loses...back and forth, back and forth...boils down to which side WINS LESS TIL THE TROPHY CHANGES HANDS AGAIN. Party Brass & Office Holders win, win or lose.

SHOCKER, that trying to insinuate a third party into a TWO PARTY STRANGLEHOLD would be divisive.

Third Party WILL cost Republicans.

It will also cost Democrats.

GOOD, sayeth I.

Everyone is tired, except the tippy-top of the Top One Percent. Even nine-plus percent of the Top Ten Percent is tired. WEARING PEOPLE DOWN is one of the many twisted specialties of Deep Pockets.

 

[cheapseats]

=cheapseats;4456464
Third Party WILL cost Republicans.

It will also cost Democrats.

I believe Third Party will cost Democrats MORE than it will cost Republicans.

IF BOARD MAJORITY OPINION ACCURATELY REFLECTS THE MAJORITY OF RON PAUL SUPPORT, then most Ron Paul Support is Republican AND most Republican Ron Paul Supporters will stick with the Republican Party. Only misguided ineffectual upper-case Libertarians will jump ship, right? And maybe Anarchists and Libertines, but I'd think the Republican wing of Ron Paul support would WANT to sever association with Anarchists + Libertines = Not AT ALL Conservative.

Evangelicals and Hardright Republicans prevailed over the "official" Ron Paul Campaign...look no further than Ron Paul signing the Personhood Pledge. (Had he not previously said something about getting bogged with absolutist pledges being silly?)

Anyhoo, Evangelical and Hardright Republicans prevail over Libertarians HERE. No surprise. Ron Paul elected to stay in the Republican Party, and this Board changed its name from LIBERTY FOREST to RON PAUL FORUMS. Water under the bridge. If he was winning, if he seemed likely to win, this would all be moot.

But that's not our story. OUR, as in We The People.

Evangelicals and "Social Conservatives" don't want this to be true, but it IS true: Their influence in the 2012 campaign has driven MANY who are beyond-disillusioned-unto-disgusted with Faux Peacenik Obama BACK into the Democratic fold, "just" because Democrats seem LESS CRAZY/HEARTLESS/FRIGHTENING than the Incompetents & Corrupted on the other "side".

 

[Nathan Hale]

Activists like myself who actually knew the names Ron Paul and Gary Johnson before 2007 are ashamed of this entire trumped-up rivalry. If you knew the high regard in which each of the two holds each other you'd all likely change your tunes.

 

[No1butPaul]

More Censorship! More Censorship! More Censorship!

There's more than one way to skin cats that won't be herded!

Fuck popular appeal, it takes too much time and compromise!

Go straight for FORCE!

Like they do.

OMG - the was a joke relating to the prior post! End the Thread rythymes with End the Fed -- get it?

 

[Respect38]

Also, to the argument of Gary Johnson not winning, it's been said before, but he doesn't have to win. He just has to get 5% of the vote to make a difference (regarding funding for the LP) and if Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination, then Gary Johnson is definitely within range of getting to 5%.

I would also know what it takes to get to the debates, because I would love to see a Libertarian at the debates.

 

[Massachusetts]

Also, to the argument of Gary Johnson not winning, it's been said before, but he doesn't have to win. He just has to get 5% of the vote to make a difference (regarding funding for the LP) and if Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination, then Gary Johnson is definitely within range of getting to 5%.

I would also know what it takes to get to the debates, because I would love to see a Libertarian at the debates.

15% in the polls

 

[Respect38]

15% in the polls

There's a set line for that? Nice.

Hm... that may be out of reach, sadly. I think the last national poll taken had him at 2%... not looking good there.

Well, he polled well in NM whenever he was a Republican candidate...

 

[jllundqu]

Activists like myself who actually knew the names Ron Paul and Gary Johnson before 2007 are ashamed of this entire trumped-up rivalry. If you knew the high regard in which each of the two holds each other you'd all likely change your tunes.

+ rep

People need to get over the fact that is is not about Ron Paul... it is about his MESSAGE and anyone who can help spread it!

Ron Paul is no god... he has a great message and one we need to help spread as far and wide as possible. There is a reason people make fun of RP fans and call us a "cult" and it's because of people who blindly follow RP and not his message. Educate yourself and play the LONG GAME... this election is over and RP has done incredibly well establishing a nationwide liberty network. It is up to us to carry the torch and anyone, including Gary Johnson, is welcome!

 

[sailingaway]

+ rep

People need to get over the fact that is is not about Ron Paul... it is about his MESSAGE and anyone who can help spread it!

Ron Paul is no god... he has a great message and one we need to help spread as far and wide as possible. There is a reason people make fun of RP fans and call us a "cult" and it's because of people who blindly follow RP and not his message. Educate yourself and play the LONG GAME... this election is over and RP has done incredibly well establishing a nationwide liberty network. It is up to us to carry the torch and anyone, including Gary Johnson, is welcome!

Ron Paul or no Ron Paul, Gary simply isn't of interest to me, and clearly to a number of others. Some of YOU need to get over the idea that requiring principles makes us cultists. You are welcome to like Gary if you want, but people who disagree with you on their own candidate's forum are not the ones bashing their heads against a wall.

 

[Revolution9]

Also, to the argument of Gary Johnson not winning, it's been said before, but he doesn't have to win. He just has to get 5% of the vote to make a difference (regarding funding for the LP) and if Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination, then Gary Johnson is definitely within range of getting to 5%.

I would also know what it takes to get to the debates, because I would love to see a Libertarian at the debates.

Ah..so you fuckers wanna torpedo Ron so Gary gets funding axed upwards. Bogus and a bad agenda. You have been caught red fucking handed. And we are suppoosed to vote for your guy with this underhanded bullshit from his supporters. If johnson getting 5% is such a big deal then why ham on RP folks who are a much greater percentile as though their efforts means dick. Your shit means dick in the context you have just presented. WE have way more than 5% of the populace backing RP. We are taking over local republican chairs left and right..if you will excuse the expression. Gary Johnson's folks are riding our coattails and your logic is skewed and your agenda sux wind bigtime..

rev9

 

[Nathan Hale]

Ron Paul or no Ron Paul, Gary simply isn't of interest to me, and clearly to a number of others. Some of YOU need to get over the idea that requiring principles makes us cultists. You are welcome to like Gary if you want, but people who disagree with you on their own candidate's forum are not the ones bashing their heads against a wall.

Yet for a large number of people he is of interest, and this forum is about the liberty movement more than just a single campaign for the presidency (I preferred Liberty Forest to Ron Paul Forums). If your bar for acceptance is Ron Paul and nothing but, that's just fine, but know that that is a non-starter if your goal is success. Coalitions and diversity are required to build a movement capable of using the political system to take back this country, and that means lowering the bar from the perfection that is Ron Paul. So perhaps Gary isn't to your liking, but accept that he is to the liking of a great many liberty advocates, and that he deserves a place at this table with us. I back plenty of candidates about whom I am not enthused, because I know that this movement is about more than what I consider acceptable, it's about building a coalition capable of winning.

 

[Shotdown1027]

If Johnson makes you uncomfortable, then vote for Virgil Goode, who has come around quite a bit on liberty issues.

Just don't write in Ron Paul. He isn't running. That means in 99% of areas, your vote will just be thrown in trash.

 

[sailingaway]

Yet for a large number of people he is of interest, and this forum is about the liberty movement more than just a single campaign for the presidency (I preferred Liberty Forest to Ron Paul Forums). If your bar for acceptance is Ron Paul and nothing but, that's just fine, but know that that is a non-starter if your goal is success. Coalitions and diversity are required to build a movement capable of using the political system to take back this country, and that means lowering the bar from the perfection that is Ron Paul. So perhaps Gary isn't to your liking, but accept that he is to the liking of a great many liberty advocates, and that he deserves a place at this table with us. I back plenty of candidates about whom I am not enthused, because I know that this movement is about more than what I consider acceptable, it's about building a coalition capable of winning.

My goal is Ron Paul or people equally principled. It isn't success to me if they aren't, so the rest is irrelevant. And voting for people I don't want is worse than throwing my vote in the trash because it falsely implies endorsement.

Having said that, I know next to nothing about Virgil Goode.

 

[sailingaway]

Yet for a large number of people he is of interest, and this forum is about the liberty movement more than just a single campaign for the presidency (I preferred Liberty Forest to Ron Paul Forums). If your bar for acceptance is Ron Paul and nothing but, that's just fine, but know that that is a non-starter if your goal is success. Coalitions and diversity are required to build a movement capable of using the political system to take back this country, and that means lowering the bar from the perfection that is Ron Paul. So perhaps Gary isn't to your liking, but accept that he is to the liking of a great many liberty advocates, and that he deserves a place at this table with us. I back plenty of candidates about whom I am not enthused, because I know that this movement is about more than what I consider acceptable, it's about building a coalition capable of winning.

to you, coalition is more important than substance consistency. To me it isn't. A coalition of what I DON'T want, is a bad thing.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

A bit of a conflicting statement here. You defended Justin Amash on his awful vote for unlimited Israeli aid, yet we have another candidate of liberty who wouldn't have voted for that and you and others want to crucify him.

Somewhat of a double standard, no? I don't see what many of you have against GJ. We all know he's not RP, but a lot of us also recognize he isn't bought and paid for by the bankers/MIC.

Look WAY up. Yeah, way up at the top. See that name? RON PAUL Forums. If you want to kneel down to Gary Johnson, feel free to start a forum for him.

 

[cheapseats]

to you, coalition is more important than substance consistency. To me it isn't. A coalition of what I DON'T want, is a bad thing.

Did you or did you not support the SANTORUM STRATEGY, which revolved around forging a COALITION with his (I believe, NUT CASE) Supporters in hope of COOPERATION between Paul and Santorum delegates?

My recollection is that you DID support the Santorum Strategery. I won't waste time searching for Truth, inasmuch as the DISAPPEARANCE of threads and posts means the Board's data base has lost integrity.

Whatever your answer to that question, I know you recollect that there WAS a Santorum Strategy and I know you recollect that you did NOT wield your Moderation Power against it.

You are no dope, correct? You can surely understand that POST RON PAUL...AFTER Ron Paul has "left the building"...the COALITION of Ron Paul Support will LOGICALLY separate . . . some going more HOLY &/OR HARDRIGHT, some going more LIBERTARIAN/INDEPENDENT. These groups have whatcha call IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES.

Leaving definitions and labels outta this, SOMETHING about Ron Paul permitted the overlap in a Venn Diagram to COALESCE.

YOU USE YOUR "POWER" AS MODERATOR to further the Holy/Hardright wing and to stifle the Libertarian/Independent wing.

It ain't Right.

 

[cheapseats]

My goal is Ron Paul or people equally principled.

NAME ONE, who qualifies in your mind.

'Cuz it sure as hell isn't Rick Santorum.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Yet for a large number of people he is of interest, and this forum is about the liberty movement more than just a single campaign for the presidency (I preferred Liberty Forest to Ron Paul Forums). If your bar for acceptance is Ron Paul and nothing but, that's just fine, but know that that is a non-starter if your goal is success. Coalitions and diversity are required to build a movement capable of using the political system to take back this country, and that means lowering the bar from the perfection that is Ron Paul. So perhaps Gary isn't to your liking, but accept that he is to the liking of a great many liberty advocates, and that he deserves a place at this table with us. I back plenty of candidates about whom I am not enthused, because I know that this movement is about more than what I consider acceptable, it's about building a coalition capable of winning.

Until Ron Paul has completely shut down his campaign, this is not the place to promote other presidential candidates.

It seems pretty simple to me.