Rand Paul Endorses Gary Johnson for Senate.

[Aratus]

Opium is more fun. (so I've been told)

Rush Limbaugh did end up on OxyContin, which is an opiate...

 

[Aratus]

Origanalist, are you now trying to get something baked
that will "nod off" the hippie activists G.J has brought
into the LIBERTARIAN fold due to his innate charisma?

 

[Origanalist]

Origanalist, are you now trying to get something baked
that will "nod off" the hippie activists G.J has brought
into the LIBERTARIAN fold due to his innate charisma?

Ha ha ha ha, if his charisma is what brought them opium would be a wake up call.

 

[dannno]

Opium is more fun. (so I've been told)

No, it isn't more fun. It's more relaxing tho.

 

[Matt Collins]

This is silly... if the Republican, or Gary, had a chance, then Rand wouldn't have done this.

 

[francisco]

This is silly... if the Republican, or Gary, had a chance, then Rand wouldn't have done this.

You're harshing my mellow.

 

[Keith and stuff]

He could announce it anyway and tell all his supporters to vote for Johnson, they might not take him off the ballot but it would do some good.

Excellent idea. Let's do it.

 

[euphemia]

Bad show on Rand's part.

 

[euphemia]

I wonder if Ron will also endorse him. I could see him doing it or not doing it. But I'd like to see him do it just to see the reactions of some here whose level of hatred for GJ is irrational.

I do not hate GJ. I think he is not what he claims to be, and I think there is a lot of conflict-of-interest in his connection to the pot lobby. That was never fully explained when he ran for president, and I remain very suspicious.

I have never used pot and never plan to. The call for legalization is the wrong way to go. The government should remain neutral and silent on the issue, and immediately repeal all law where it is mentioned. People should be able to grow and use whatever they want in their own yard without any interference from anyone. It's nobody's business.

Current law covers the industrialization of pot. Sale, regulation, taxation, and the forfeiture of anonymity. It does not cover a few plants in a yard grown for personal use. There is a huge difference here. I wish you all could see it.

 

[Smaulgld]

I do not hate GJ. I think he is not what he claims to be, and I think there is a lot of conflict-of-interest in his connection to the pot lobby. That was never fully explained when he ran for president, and I remain very suspicious.

I have never used pot and never plan to. The call for legalization is the wrong way to go. The government should remain neutral and silent on the issue, and immediately repeal all law where it is mentioned. People should be able to grow and use whatever they want in their own yard without any interference from anyone. It's nobody's business.

Current law covers the industrialization of pot. Sale, regulation, taxation, and the forfeiture of anonymity. It does not cover a few plants in a yard grown for personal use. There is a huge difference here. I wish you all could see it.

There is a big difference between Ron Paul and Rand Paul and an even bigger difference between Rand Paul and Gary Johnson
Johnson is an odd blend of ideas, not fully libertarian , not fully sensible. He is more harm than good

 

[Anti Federalist]

There is a big difference between Ron Paul and Rand Paul and an even bigger difference between Rand Paul and Gary Johnson
Johnson is an odd blend of ideas, not fully libertarian , not fully sensible. He is more harm than good

More harm than a Bolshevik democrat?

Nah...

 

[Anti Federalist]

[MENTION=10908]dannno[/MENTION]

Done.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...a-wager-with-dannno-(UPDATE-DANNNO-WON)/page6

 

[Swordsmyth]

Bad show on Rand's part.

I have little love for Johnson but he is better than the Republican in this case and he could beat the Demoncrat while the Republican can't.
Rand is exactly right here.

 

[Swordsmyth]

There is a big difference between Ron Paul and Rand Paul and an even bigger difference between Rand Paul and Gary Johnson
Johnson is an odd blend of ideas, not fully libertarian , not fully sensible. He is more harm than good

But he is less harm than either of the other options, he would also be the first LP Senator, that would move the political landscape our direction in a massive way.

 

[dannno]

I do not hate GJ. I think he is not what he claims to be, and I think there is a lot of conflict-of-interest in his connection to the pot lobby. That was never fully explained when he ran for president, and I remain very suspicious.

I have never used pot and never plan to. The call for legalization is the wrong way to go. The government should remain neutral and silent on the issue, and immediately repeal all law where it is mentioned. People should be able to grow and use whatever they want in their own yard without any interference from anyone. It's nobody's business.

Current law covers the industrialization of pot. Sale, regulation, taxation, and the forfeiture of anonymity. It does not cover a few plants in a yard grown for personal use. There is a huge difference here. I wish you all could see it.

1.
If weed is illegal as it was for most of the last 50 years, then you can illegally grow cannabis on your property, sell it illegally, buy it illegally, possess it illegally, smoke it illegally out of illegal paraphernalia/pipes, etc..

The smell of cannabis, which is quite potent, in and of itself is proof of illegal activity. This causes widespread police harassment.

2.
If weed is legal but heavily regulated, you can still illegally grow cannabis on your property, sell it illegally, buy it illegally, possess it legally, smoke it legally out of legal paraphenalia/pipes, etc..

The smell of cannabis, which is quite potent, is not proof of illegal activity. This prevents widespread police harassment.




If you actually used cannabis, why wouldn't you prefer the second one to the first?

 

[Jan2017]

This is silly... if the Republican, or Gary, had a chance, then Rand wouldn't have done this.

There is a big difference between Ron Paul and Rand Paul and an even bigger difference between Rand Paul and Gary Johnson
Johnson is an odd blend of ideas, not fully libertarian , not fully sensible. He is more harm than good

Good, the Republican is worse and doesn't have a chance, Rand should get Trump to endorse Johnson.

I figured that someday the first "L" in Congress would be in the House of Representatives -
but fine if he is really running as a Libertarian and is in all the local NM debates.

Johnson should avoid displays of affection to other debaters . . .

 

[euphemia]

1.
If weed is illegal as it was for most of the last 50 years, then you can illegally grow cannabis on your property, sell it illegally, buy it illegally, possess it illegally, smoke it illegally out of illegal paraphernalia/pipes, etc..

The smell of cannabis, which is quite potent, in and of itself is proof of illegal activity. This causes widespread police harassment.

2.
If weed is legal but heavily regulated, you can still illegally grow cannabis on your property, sell it illegally, buy it illegally, possess it legally, smoke it legally out of legal paraphenalia/pipes, etc..

The smell of cannabis, which is quite potent, is not proof of illegal activity. This prevents widespread police harassment.




If you actually used cannabis, why wouldn't you prefer the second one to the first?

Why would you prefer government regulation to true liberty?

 

[Swordsmyth]

I figured that someday the first "L" in Congress would be in the House of Representatives -
but fine if he is really running as a Libertarian and is in all the local NM debates.

Johnson should avoid displays of affection to other debaters . . .

He is far from ideal and the only reasons I agree with Rand are that he is the best option in the race and because of the effect it will have on American politics if the LP gets a Senate seat.

 

[dannno]

Why would you prefer government regulation to true liberty?

I don't, that wasn't an option I listed, nor is it a realistic option now.

I guess if I were a dictator it would be an option, and that would be the direction I would go but otherwise that is a dream.

YOU YOURSELF insist that cannabis being completely illegal is preferable to it being legal and regulated.

You could use tax cuts as an example..

If taxes were 80%, and I advocated we elect Gary Johnson who could realistically win and implement a 70% tax reduction, or a 10% tax, if you used the same logic you would be against electing Gary Johnson because he doesn't advocate for a 0% tax (at least in the short term) - even though a 10% tax would be far superior to an 80% tax.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Why would you prefer government regulation to true liberty?

Maybe those aren't the options, maybe we can move things in the right direction yard by yard while we can't score a touchdown in one play.