Re: Johnson / OG paulbot got something to say

[Natural Citizen]

Fair enough brother but remember I ain't your enemy.

Yeah, I know.

You can't let people like me make you take your ball and go home, though. There will always be disagreement. If there isn't, then, things aren't being discussed properly.

Peace.

 

[Leaning Libertarian]

Hey, if GJ actually gets new people to embrace liberty, property rights, etc that's cool. Although he himself doesn't understand or believe in many of the things RP did. I haven't heard anyone say GJ cured my apathy, but I suppose they may be out there.

Weld doesn't embrace liberty at all. He's not good on anything.

Libertarians were given a gift that comes perhaps only once in a century. Trump and Clinton both are especially disliked as candidates. They completely blew their opportunity with Johnson / Weld. I registered Libertarian after Rand dropped out, yet there is no damn way I am going to vote for this ticket. With all the horrendous options, I think I will personally write in Andrew Basiago and be done with this election cycle.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I think I will personally write in Andrew Basiago and be done with this election cycle.

Ha. That's the guy who says he was a time traveler and visited Mars with Obama in Project Pegasus? I think he suspended his campaign some time ago.

 

[Nash]

I don't understand the AnCap hate on Johnson. Yeah he's not an AnCap but he's at least in the same ballpark on most of the issues. He's also actually trying to get elected, not just educate people like the Ron Paul campaigns.

Anyone who thinks Ron Paul was actually running a viable campaign back in 2008/2012 is really not paying attention. You can't run on a platform of "dissolve the federal government" and expect to get elected. Yes he got decent percentages in some of the primaries, but those were basically from the same "let the world burn" supporters whom are now backing Trump.

I say all this as someone who voted for Paul in both 2008 and 2012 and canvassed for him door to door in my neighborhood and donated money to his campaign. It was all about getting the word out about libertarian ideas, not about winning.

The vast majority of people do not like libertarian purist positions. They will NEVER win in an election unless there is some monumental crisis. Johnson is a totally realistic libertarian candidate, even if you want him to accuse him of only being libertarian leaning, he's 500 times better than Trump/Clinton.

If you're truly into liberty you must realize you don't elections with feast or famine voting. You win incrementally. If Johnson does well (even if he doesn't win) that sets the table for a better chance going forward. Sitting at 1% of the vote with hardline ancap positions isn't getting us anywhere.

 

[undergroundrr]

I don't understand the AnCap hate on Johnson. Yeah he's not an AnCap but he's at least in the same ballpark on most of the issues. He's also actually trying to get elected, not just educate people like the Ron Paul campaigns.

Anyone who thinks Ron Paul was actually running a viable campaign back in 2008/2012 is really not paying attention. You can't run on a platform of "dissolve the federal government" and expect to get elected. Yes he got decent percentages in some of the primaries, but those were basically from the same "let the world burn" supporters whom are now backing Trump.

I say all this as someone who voted for Paul in both 2008 and 2012 and canvassed for him door to door in my neighborhood and donated money to his campaign. It was all about getting the word out about libertarian ideas, not about winning.

The vast majority of people do not like libertarian purist positions. They will NEVER win in an election unless there is some monumental crisis. Johnson is a totally realistic libertarian candidate, even if you want him to accuse him of only being libertarian leaning, he's 500 times better than Trump/Clinton.

If you're truly into liberty you must realize you don't elections with feast or famine voting. You win incrementally. If Johnson does well (even if he doesn't win) that sets the table for a better chance going forward. Sitting at 1% of the vote with hardline ancap positions isn't getting us anywhere.

Excellent post. +rep. I voted for Chuck Baldwin in 2008 instead of Johnson. I thought if Johnson was a true libertarian he would have stayed out of Ron Paul's way at the time. Coming into this election I knew Johnson's peculiarities and impurities and had come to terms with it. I like Castle a lot, but you are voting for a party when you vote for a candidate.

I would love to elect someone who would dismantle the state on day one. But I'm very pleased with Johnson's rhetoric and strategy thus far. He's managed not to make the mistake of preaching to the libertarian choir. Libertarians habitually spout out formulaic dogma and marginalize themselves. Instead, he's proven he's his own man and shown he'll take the difficult steps to earn support. Despite his apparent goofiness, there's a toughness and resilience there that's pretty admirable.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Fundamentals are not purist. Fundamentals are fundamentals. To refer to fundamentals as purist is nothing less than a slick, dishonest, attempt at stimulating the idea that fundamentals and the moral foundation for Individual Liberty can and should be arbitrarily accepted and rejected piece-meal. This is a disservice to the cause of liberty. Principles define liberty. Not policy.

 

[devil21]

And that quickly I'm reminded me of why I left this shithole to begin with. Enjoy your "inclusive" movement. I'm sure you'll get all those converts acting like that.

I wish the old guard of RP activists could be a little more open to actually growing their own movement instead of waiting for candidates and supporters who align with them on 99% of issues to just show up on their own.

Good luck ladies and germs!

TPP, carbon taxes, gun control, CFR, etc. Ladies and gentleman, the Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson.

Calling it "libertarian" does not make it that. Just because people are using the word libertarian does not mean that the policies or the candidates are libertarian. It's an attempt to rewrite history and apply a different label to socialist globalism, which is quite obviously what is being pushed regardless of which candidate you 'vote' for. If anything it damages libertarianism because it utterly changes what the term meant during Ron's campaigns. Again, calling something libertarian does not make it such. It's not a win if the very term for the movement is perverted into something else entirely. You can't possibly think that libertarianism wins if socialist globalism policies are the outcome of the 'win'?

Btw, any candidate that has either been a lawyer or a governor knows that the real history of this land mass known as America is NOT what the average voter believes. Governors know that the corporate State Governments are nothing but corporate subsidiaries of the corporate United States (Inc.) government and are not autonomous governments.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Well said OP

Sadly, as you realized (or remembered) over the course of the thread, there are people within the liberty movement (or who consider themselves part of the liberty movement) who are deaf to this kind of reasoning. 99% purity isn't good enough for them (though evidently 1% is good enough, if the point of agreement addresses their pet obsession: gay cake, TPP, etc). The good news is that they're very few in number relative the number of people needed for a winning coalition, so they don't really matter, irritating as they may be.

 

[69360]

Johnson will be lucky to get 2% of the vote. After November, this is all going to be over. And we're going to be back to principles.

It's going to be more than 2. Polls aren't off that far. That lesson was already learned. IMO it will be between 5 and 10.

 

[Natural Citizen]

99% purity isn't good enough for them (though evidently 1% is good enough, if the point of agreement addresses their pet obsession: gay cake, TPP, etc). The good news is that they're very few in number relative the number of people needed for a winning coalition, so they don't really matter, irritating as they may be.

This right here is the most dangerous threat to the cause of Liberty, people. And it is blatantly right there in your face.

The TPP is an illegal transfer of power. Patently. Than, again, you openly state that the best form of government is a Monarchy. You openly promote the idea of Kings. This is a rejection of the right to Individual Liberty itself.

Monarchy Is the Best Form of Government - That's you, r3volution 3.0. You said that. And you continue to openly promote the ideology. It's no wonder you reject concern from real libertarians who reject the notion of a TPP where power is illegaly transferred to a King.


"Gay Cake", as you say, is a rejection of the right to property. It's communist. Patently. The right to property is the principal support for the right to Life and Liberty itself. To openly contend that your position is one that supports sending men from the govenment with guns to force Individuals to relinquish their property is communist. It is not libertarian in any way. This contention is one that is an open rejection of the right to Life and Liberty completely.



To people like r3volution 3.0, it really is good news that people who adhere to the primary supporting fundamental principles of Individual Liberty are very few in number relative the number of people winning by way of the Marxist coalition.

Because without people who adhere to Individual Liberty's most fundamental supporting principles, it paves the way for the cultural Marxist expansion and a redefinition of principles. To blatantly and openly mock these primary fundamental principles of Individual Liberty and Life itself as "pet obsession" is a blatant demonstration of aggression toward and disrespect for the right to Life and Liberty itself.

You put on a good front. I'll give you that much.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

It's going to be more than 2. Polls aren't off that far. That lesson was already learned. IMO it will be between 5 and 10.

Agreed

Nate Silver has it at 6.6% at the moment, which is conservative relative the polling.

 

[Natural Citizen]

He'll be very lucky to see 2%. Thankfully. That guy has no business even having his name mentioned in the same sentence with Liberty. He's a cultural Marxist at best. He's certainly a patent communist given that he openly admitted his rejection of the right to property. By default, this means that he rejects the right to Life and Liberty fully given that the right to property is Life and Liberty's principal support.

And on top of that he openly states that he'd consider officially signing off on a illegal transfer of power from the people to a King.

A real champion of Individual Liberty, that Gary Johnson guy. Makes a feller want to whistle fukin Dixie.

 

[undergroundrr]

"Gay Cake", as you say, is a rejection of the right to property. It's communist.

I hate communism too much to see that word thrown around willy-nilly.

The gay couple was going to pay for the cake. They weren't forcing the owners to redistribute the cake to them.

The $135,000 in civil damages was a travesty of justice. It was due to a corrupt court system and a result of unjust legislation. But not communism.

Now, the IRS is communism - http://thehill.com/regulation/282381-libertarian-gary-johnson-id-eliminate-nsa-irs-if-elected

Eminent domain is communism - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../08/19/donald-trumps-abuse-of-eminent-domain/

 

[Natural Citizen]

I hate communism too much to see that word thrown around willy-nilly.

The gay couple was going to pay for the cake. They weren't forcing the owners to redistribute the cake to them.

The $135,000 in civil damages was a travesty of justice. It was due to a corrupt court system and a result of unjust legislation. But not communism.

Now, the IRS is communism - http://thehill.com/regulation/282381-libertarian-gary-johnson-id-eliminate-nsa-irs-if-elected

Eminent domain is communism - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../08/19/donald-trumps-abuse-of-eminent-domain/

Gary Johnson....your boy...the one that you're organizing for toward leadership of our nation...openly professed that it was his contention to send men from the government with guns to force an Individual or to force a group of Individuals to relinquish their right to property.

This is patently communist.

Again. The right to property is an indispensable and principal material support, not only of Man's God-given unalienable rights, but of Man's right to Life and Liberty itself.

You're out of your league, undergrounderr. Stop while you have a chance. Because I'll bury your argument in a hot second, brother. And I'll demonstrate absolutely no shame in doing so. I'm tired of being nice to you people. It doesn't work. A this point the only thing left is to start calling people out openly for the purpose of demonstrating precisely what it is that they are organizing for.

 

[undergroundrr]

You're out of your league, undergrounderr. Stop while you have a chance. Because I'll bury your argument in a hot second, brother. And I'll demonstrate absolutely no shame in doing so. I'm tired of being nice to you people. It doesn't work.

No, I'm trying to help. You're not going to be able to make your points without precise vocabulary.

Communism is a system of economy that involves theft and apprehension of property. That doesn't mean that every time a government, king, shah, pope or petty thief steals something it's communism.

e.g. To label, say, mafia extortion as communism would be a misnomer. Calling it communism wouldn't somehow make it worse than it is.

Social welfare systems are communism. Taxation for redistribution is communism. That's just not what the gay Nazi cake issue is. It's the unintended* consequence of a do-gooder law.

EDIT: * or intended.

 

[Natural Citizen]

No, I'm trying to help. You're not going to be able to make your points without precise vocabulary.

Communism is a system of economy that involves theft and apprehension of property. That doesn't mean that every time a government, king, shah, pope or petty thief steals something it's communism.

e.g. To label, say, mafia extortion as communism would be a misnomer. Calling it communism wouldn't somehow make it worse than it is.

Social welfare systems are communism. Taxation for redistribution is communism. That's just not what the gay Nazi cake issue is. It's the unintended* consequence of a do-gooder law.

EDIT: * or intended.

Gary Johnson's contention....again, your boy... is patently communist by his own admission. He contended...openly...and in Liberty...that he'd send men from the government with guns to force an Individual or to force a group of Individuals to relinquish their right to property.

Again. The right to property is an indispensable and principal material support, not only of Man's God-given unalienable rights, but of Man's right to Life and Liberty itself. To reject Life and Liberty's most fundamental principal support is to patently reject the concept of the right to Life and Individual Liberty fully.

Why do you hate freedom, undergroundrr? Hm? Why? Freedom is a wonderful thing. Why on Earth would you promote someone in Liberty whose open aknowledgment is patently aggressive toward and a rejection of the concept of Individual Liberty fully?

 

[undergroundrr]

Again. The right to property is an indispensable and principal material support, not only of Man's God-given unalienable rights, but of Man's right to Life and Liberty itself.

Yeah, but it's not necessarily communism.

It's like the Cultural Marxist misnomer. Belief systems and racial heritages aren't an economy. You can't apply economic principles to them no matter how much the Frankfurters and alt-righters would like you to think so.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Yeah, but it's not necessarily communism.

Sending men from the government with guns to force Individuals to relinquish their right to property, Gary Jonson's admitted contention, is patently communist.

 

[undergroundrr]

Gary Johnson's contention is patently communist. He contended that he'd send men from the government with guns to force an Individual or to force a group of Individuals to relinquish their right to property.

Well, that would be authoritarian, but not necessarily communist. Anyhow, Johnson said none of those things. He did say that there's a law on the books, and whoever is in office has to uphold the laws. You'd be valid if Johnson had said "By dadgum, I'm going to implement a policy that will make those Jewish bakers sell those Nazis a cake whether they like it or not."

You're hearing what you want to hear rather than what was actually said.

Looked at in another way, you are also saying that Ron Paul, if he were president of the United States, would send men from the government with guns to force an Individual or to force a group of Individuals to relinquish their right to property. Until he could overturn the public accommodation clause, which he never put forth to my knowledge.

Not just public accommodation, but many other areas of law would require him to do so. And in fact he did it as congressman when he inserted appropriations to fund local constituency requests in bills. That money had to come from somewhere. But Ron Paul is not a communist despite your implications to the contrary.

 

[undergroundrr]

Sending men from the government with guns to force Individuals to relinquish their right to property, Gary Jonson's admitted contention, is patently communist.

You can say that, but you're using the word communism like liberals use the word fascist. Find another word that actually means what you're trying to say.

Communism is far too evil. It's no good to have its true meaning clouded by misrepresentation.