Sanford, Johnson, Ventura, or other?

[DeadheadForPaul]

1.) Johnson and Sanford are both good candidates

2.) Sanford is not a "shill" like some of the people on this board seem to think. It is generally the tin foil faction of our movement that is condemning Sanford.

He consistently voted with Paul in Congress and has consistently stood up for liberty in his home state over the course of 2 terms as Governor

3.) Sanford is most electable for the following reasons:
a.) People like governors because they have the executive experience that a President needs
b.) Sanford is a traditional conservative and can unite the warring factions of the Right while bringing in moderates, libertarians, and independents
c.) He is a southerner, and a solid South is key to Republican victory
d.) He is in the news - very big in the news, in fact.

 

[Nathan Hale]

No, you are characterizing my observations as assumptions.

Yes, because the moniker is appropriate.

An example was used because it simplifies the point, that's why it's called an example.

The example you chose was very open-ended, leaving many possible explanations. You somehow came to a conclusion as to an explanation without addressing the many other possibilities, which I why I characterized your conclusion as assumption.

Apparently, I cannot even look at sun and declare there's daylight.

Unfortunately your example is not quite so direct.

I must somehow assume straight seven decades of radical, unrelenting US govermental growth federally and across all 50 states, the systematic subversion or ignoring of constitutional limits on state power, and systematic military expansionism to 140 countries is unintended.

I'm not asking you to assume anything.

I must 'prove' motive and intention,

Yes.

while you can call my proof 'unsupported' without offering evidence for your characterizations.

First, I'm not the one characterizing the situation, this is about your opinion of the matter. Second, I have no intention of calling your proof "unsupported" unless that adjective fits the bill. Contrary to what you probably think of me, I am supportive of your claims. If government shenanigans are the case, it would explain a lot, and I would like to see them brought to task for it. I'm not here waiting to shoot down every proof you offer.

This was the problem with your approach to 9-11, and it appears to be your MO to be putting people on the defensive. Objectivize your agnostism, subjectivize whatever others say that you don't like.

I apologize for your misunderstanding of the situation, but I'm not trying to put you on the defense, all I want is the logic and evidence behind your conclusions.

Let's say I am agnostic about the presumption that accidentialism is the 'default' reasonable situation, and other other scenarios must be rationalized away.

I never said anything of the sort! Reasonable people determine on a case by case basis what the most reasonable explanation is in a given situation.

I do not accept your unsupported hypothesis.

Why don't you concentrate on defending your argument, because you're not going to get anywhere trying to turn this around on me.

 

[angelatc]

1.) Johnson and Sanford are both good candidates

2.) Sanford is not a "shill" like some of the people on this board seem to think. It is generally the tin foil faction of our movement that is condemning Sanford.

He consistently voted with Paul in Congress and has consistently stood up for liberty in his home state over the course of 2 terms as Governor

3.) Sanford is most electable for the following reasons:
a.) People like governors because they have the executive experience that a President needs
b.) Sanford is a traditional conservative and can unite the warring factions of the Right while bringing in moderates, libertarians, and independents
c.) He is a southerner, and a solid South is key to Republican victory
d.) He is in the news - very big in the news, in fact.

LOL! Josh is hardly a tin foil hatter! I'd vote for either Sanford or Johnson at this point, but the primaries haven't started yet.

 

[RebelRoss0587]

I'd rather have Romney than Obama.

I hope so many of the those Huckabee supporters are finally realizing that Romney would've been better than Obama and that their support would have saved the GOP from nominating McCain who was the WORST possible choice and ran a ridiculously terrible campaign. I'd rather have Romney, Paul, Sanford, or Jindal than Obama and hopefully we'll get one of those four in 2012.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Why don't you concentrate on defending your argument, because you're not going to get anywhere trying to turn this around on me.

Just to conclude this matter, I'm also not trying to misunderstand you, but do in fact find your approach to be unsupported. I just have a strong aversion to contentious exchanges, which your microscopic parsing of my posts seemed to signify. I was not even TRYING to argue this time, and you rebutted. All I did was reconcile beliefs, in response to a comment, not to try to prove the truth of either belief. The problems with Sanford and Johnson remain, whether others want to dismiss them by negative labelling or not, or whether they want to dwell on secondary matters or not. There may not even be elections in four years, folks---now is not the time to be worried about looking like tinfoil.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Just to conclude this matter, I'm also not trying to misunderstand you, but do in fact find your approach to be unsupported.

You find my approach to be unsupported? Please explain that, because I'm at a loss.

I just have a strong aversion to contentious exchanges,

And yet you have no aversion to posting contentious statements.

which your microscopic parsing of my posts seemed to signify.

I parse your posts strictly as a matter of making myself as clear as possible. Had I simply quoted you and wrote my reply below it, I'd have to use five times the verbiage to articulate myself on each point I wished to make. Parsing allows me to insert my quotes as directly as possible. If it signifies anything else, I apologize for your misunderstanding.

I was not even TRYING to argue this time, and you rebutted. All I did was reconcile beliefs, in response to a comment, not to try to prove the truth of either belief. The problems with Sanford and Johnson remain, whether others want to dismiss them by negative labelling or not, or whether they want to dwell on secondary matters or not.

The thesis of your post was to link fighting for small government with fighting "false flag" ops. That prompted my reply.

There may not even be elections in four years, folks---now is not the time to be worried about looking like tinfoil.

That's the same thing I hear every four years.

 

[SovereignMN]

In addition to the 9/11 stuff, a reason why Ventura is not a good choice for this movement is that he is hostile to religion. Calling Christians "weak minded" and advocating taxation against churches is going to split this movement in two.

 

[tajitj]

Imagine this....

Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, and Peter Schiff all on the GOP stage in the debates.

You can even throw Sanford in that group but he is a neocon people. Do not be to excited about him.

 

[Flash]

I like Gary Johnson the best out of the three. Ventura I hope really doesn't run. Hopefully Sanford runs alongside Johnson..

 

[libertarian4321]

Ventura for President, with RP as Vice (to help keep him in line a bit).

 

[scandinaviany3]

sanford / paul ticket makes the most sense

I agree 100%.

To be brutally honest...

Johnson - He was governor too long ago for anyone to recognize him
Ventura - Too many people view him as a nut and don't take him seriously
Sanford - Sanford is our best candidate (unless paul runs again)

Sanford/Paul ticket would be incredible.

We have to unite our cause!!!

We either have to pick Johnson or Sanford. We can not be divided.

Sanford and Paul ticket does make the most sense

 

[Chieftain1776]

Look I've actually changed my approach to politics somewhat. My view is that I basically want a Ron Paul in every presidential primary just to get the message out. I don't really care about electability anymore b/c I believe that the majority of Americans want the government they have more or less. Read Bryan Caplan's Myth of a Rational Voter and you'll see that all politicians really do is fan the flames of the median voter's bias. The people wanted Iraq...not in the sense that they were clamoring for it but they wanted something tangible done. Same goes for the stimulus...most polls show that the people are against it but when Obama is attached the polling changes and most people are accept that he's doing something.

On 2012, I'd actually changed my preference to Johnson if he'd do something to show he's part of the movement. Where is he on speaking against the bailout? On the stimulus? At C4L events? Is he even doing anything with drug legalization?

My view is that Sanford is the only one (besides Ron Paul) taking a stand against bailouts, stimulus and the size of government and at a personal cost (Google Sanford Amendment). Look if Johnson starts taking the RP line and showing up at C4L events he has my support... until then I'm backing Ron Paul and then Sanford.

Here are my previous contributions to the debate...keep in mind my philosophy has changed about the purpose of political activism:

Sanford as "one of us"
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1830053&postcount=29

Problems with them as candidates
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1818535#post1818535

Oh and about Ventura....he doesn't seem that libertarian/constitutionalist. Here's a quick result I found: http://www.angelfire.com/mn/rongstadliberty/ventura.html

But hey if someone can (1) make the pro-liberty case for him, (2) he starts getting active and (3) focuses on the size and scope of the federal government (instead of spouting off about Trutherism every chance) then....even with his baggage... I'd reconsider my support.

 

[RebelRoss0587]

My view is that Sanford is the only one (besides Ron Paul) taking a stand against bailouts, stimulus and the size of government and at a personal cost (Google Sanford Amendment). Look if Johnson starts taking the RP line and showing up at C4L events he has my support... until then I'm backing Ron Paul and then Sanford.

I don't understand that statement. I can think of many people who have been very outspoken against bailouts, but one immediately comes to mind as the person who was most outspoken against even the auto bailout which affected the state he was from. Look at these articles and tell me who has been more outspoken against bailouts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html

http://digg.com/political_opinion/Romney_Stimulate_the_economy_not_government

http://digg.com/politics/Governor_Romney_s_Remarks_to_the_House_Republican_Conference

http://digg.com/politics/A_Republican_Stimulus_Plan_from_Mitt_Romney

 

[ClayTrainor]

I don't understand that statement. I can think of many people who have been very outspoken against bailouts, but one immediately comes to mind as the person who was most outspoken against even the auto bailout which affected the state he was from. Look at these articles and tell me who has been more outspoken against bailouts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html

http://digg.com/political_opinion/Romney_Stimulate_the_economy_not_government

http://digg.com/politics/Governor_Romney_s_Remarks_to_the_House_Republican_Conference

http://digg.com/politics/A_Republican_Stimulus_Plan_from_Mitt_Romney

Romney is a warmongering prick who made fun of and laughed at Paul on the radio, during the primaries.

Screw Romney!

 

[Juvenal]

Having lived under the Ventura administration, it was not all the different than any other administration, but the press conferences were alot more interesting...

His main rail is against the duopoly the two major parties have over politics, which is a great thing to rail against, but is not necessarily central to the cause.