Gary Johnson The case for voting for Gary Johnson.

[V3n]

Sure, it's possible.

But "simply" promoting Gary Johnson AS A VIABLE PLAN B IF RON PAUL IS NOT ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT gets me a ration of shit about traitorousness, 'cuz board namesake Ron Paul's hat is still in the ring.

Which brings me to RAND.

Well, thanks for the honest answer.

 

[mczerone]

adios JohnAshman

He didn't do anything wrong per site rules. He was debating the "libertarian merits" of GJ vs RP.

In the interim between the 08 and 12 campaigns, these forums were called "Liberty Forest". I hope that it can continue to be a place where all liberty-minded people can coalesce and discuss current events and political candidates.

RP is not an infallible christ of liberty, and his record should be open to scrutiny. If new members can't come in and say e.g. That GJ has a comparable pro/con list to RP, then how is the membership of the board going to remain fluid? And if membership declines or stagnates, the networking value of the site will suffer.

There are a ton of people that are more "offensive" than this poster was. There's also this neat little "ignore" tool that you can use to avoid hearing from people that bother you.

Banning was too harsh, even of this guy was a troll. And if he was honestly just a GJ supporter, why not let him stick around and get educated about our diverse opinions of liberty?

 

[MrWalker]

Ill just inflict a little thing here; http://wredlich.com/ny/2011/12/the-problem-with-gary-johnson-roger-stone/

It absolutely amazes me how people can fall for anything.

 

[Sam I am]

//

 

[Nathan Hale]

In the interim between the 08 and 12 campaigns, these forums were called "Liberty Forest". I hope that it can continue to be a place where all liberty-minded people can coalesce and discuss current events and political candidates.

RP is not an infallible christ of liberty, and his record should be open to scrutiny. If new members can't come in and say e.g. That GJ has a comparable pro/con list to RP, then how is the membership of the board going to remain fluid? And if membership declines or stagnates, the networking value of the site will suffer.

HEAR HEAR! As Ron Paul himself warned, this movement should never have turned into a cult of personality.

 

[cheapseats]

its true GJ has a libertarian following for vetoes

but he was in an executive position...and didn't do anything other then veto stuff and make prisons.

He inherited a deficit, balanced the budget and bequeathed a surplus.

If those would be his "only" accomplishments at the national level, I could live with that. Ideology and fifty cents will get you a phone call, IF you can find a pay-phone.

 

[cheapseats]

You don't join them to beat them. You join them because you believe you can't beat them and can profit from their bribes.

Agreed, tho bribes are not the only glue.

There is the LIFESTYLE...the POSITION...jetsetting & hobnobbing, moving & shaking. PLUS wealth & security.

It's all very seductive...all very hard to RISK, once obtained.

 

[psi2941]

I don't know why people here are bashing Johnson, he is clearly the best of the three. I want to vote for him but my state might be a toss up state, and i just can't let the republicans get away with nominating a guy with a new lip service . so i have to vote for obama. but if michigan turns out to be a solid blue state i'll be voting for Johnson.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

I don't know why people here are bashing Johnson, he is clearly the best of the three. I want to vote for him but my state might be a toss up state, and i just can't let the republicans get away with nominating a guy with a new lip service . so i have to vote for obama. but if michigan turns out to be a solid blue state i'll be voting for Johnson.

He's the least bad option of the three, for sure, but as a Libertarian standard bearer, he's dreadful. That said, he's reading Economics In One Lesson and For A New Liberty, so there's always the possibility he'll improve.

 

[sailingaway]

He didn't do anything wrong per site rules. He was debating the "libertarian merits" of GJ vs RP.

In the interim between the 08 and 12 campaigns, these forums were called "Liberty Forest". I hope that it can continue to be a place where all liberty-minded people can coalesce and discuss current events and political candidates.

RP is not an infallible christ of liberty, and his record should be open to scrutiny. If new members can't come in and say e.g. That GJ has a comparable pro/con list to RP, then how is the membership of the board going to remain fluid? And if membership declines or stagnates, the networking value of the site will suffer.

There are a ton of people that are more "offensive" than this poster was. There's also this neat little "ignore" tool that you can use to avoid hearing from people that bother you.

Banning was too harsh, even of this guy was a troll. And if he was honestly just a GJ supporter, why not let him stick around and get educated about our diverse opinions of liberty?

This comment is only with reference to the bolded parts above, although I will say that even when this was 'Liberty Forest' "Ron Paul forums" was the subtitle as Liberty Forest is now.

I do see a divide, not as in an 'antithetical to work together' but as in a 'coming from a different place' between some of those in the liberty movement as a group and Ron Paul supporters in a group (for the moment dividing them in two.)

I wasn't a 'libertarian', as I thought, before Ron Paul's 2007 run. Many here werent, some not until this run. Ron essentially IS our standard. He has a holistic set of principles he always works from. Some here define libertarianism differently (some define it simply as a larger set of options of thought amongst which Ron Paul's are a subset). But to say to a Ron Paul supporter that we should support any candidate because he is actually 'more' pure to some standard they prefer begs the point that what we see as the best around is Ron, not their standard. To many of us, deviation from the principles Ron has stayed true to is the lack of 'purity', that being our standard.

For me, when Rand came around, I was willing he have his own principles in the vicinity of Ron's if they hit my hot buttons, I would just have to analyze his different principles and make sure he stayed true to those, so I knew what I was getting and that he had the sand to stand up for at least HIS issues. I didn't need a clone to Ron. (I'm not pushing Rand at the moment, by the way, just explaining the vetting process I went through.)

What gets me about Gary is not just specific deviations from Ron (although vacuum in certain areas where I do have hot buttons like civil liberties makes me wonder 'why bother') but that he doesn't seem to work from prime principles so he can even be pinned down on values and can be predictable.

I just throw it out there.

 

[cheapseats]

I don't know why people here are bashing Johnson...

I do.

 

[cheapseats]

...Ron essentially IS our standard...

Ron Paul will shortly be out of "active" politics.

For Ron Paul Devotees, NO ONE will fill Ron Paul's shoes...EVER. Same with Grateful Dead Heads. Same with people who swoon over ELVIS...or quite differently over FRANK SINATRA.

Ron Paul was ODD GLUE. People found certain compromises palatable because of something unthreatening about HIM.

PRO CHOICE and ANTI ABORTION, for example, are irreconcilably different. Why would ANYONE who believes that Abortion Hysterics are misguided at best and flaming hypocrites at worst CONTINUE to put aside that GLARINGLY different core principle for a "lesser" candidate?

They WOULDN'T. They WON'T. Libertarian-leaning and Hardright-leaning are "naturally" at odds.

 

[sailingaway]

Ron Paul will shortly be out of "active" politics.

For Ron Paul Devotees, NO ONE will fill Ron Paul's shoes...EVER. Same with Grateful Dead Heads. Same with people who swoon over ELVIS...or quite differently over FRANK SINATRA.

Ron Paul was ODD GLUE. People found certain compromises palatable because of something unthreatening about HIM.

PRO CHOICE and ANTI ABORTION, for example, are irreconcilably different. Why would ANYONE who believes that Abortion Hysterics are misguided at best and flaming hypocrites at worst CONTINUE to put aside that GLARINGLY different core principle for a "lesser" candidate?

They WOULDN'T. They WON'T. Libertarian-leaning and Hardright-leaning are "naturally" at odds.

Abortion is 100% about when you individually believe life begins. If you believe it begins at conception a woman has no more right to 'choose' to kill her baby than an adult has a right to kill another for food after a shipwreck. There were cases on it. You could draw straws or something for who would be eaten if all voluntarily agree in advance, but people couldn't just gang up and kill someone. Even when they 'needed to' to live.

On the other hand if you don't believe life begins until, as one person here stated his belief 'sentience' attached (although I am not sure how you measure that moment in the unborn) then you might think there is only one 'person' in the abortion equation to consider. But it isn't an issue of 'choice', it is an issue of the definition of 'life'.

 

[TheTexan]

I don't vote for fascists no matter how kind and efficient one might be. Johnson's underlying governing philosophy is no different from Obama or Romney, he just wants to do it less expensively. At this point in time that's not a good thing, as the next term of Obama or Romney will blow up the present fascist system faster than a term of Johnson would.

This

For example, despite having been directly educated in the issue by knowledgeable experts, Johnson still can't find any crimes committed by titans of the financial system in the continuing aftermath of historic, epic, systemwide fraud.

and that

Johnson has been clear time and time again as to where he stands - the only things he wants to change are those that are not cost-efficient for the government. In other words, his dispute with R/D parties is not about the relationship of government to the people, as ours is, but merely in the details of how the present system is administered.

As a real resumption of the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution is not on the table with any of them, better that we live through the crisis of the self-destruction of the fascist system rather than force the next generation to suck up that hit. It's our responsibility and our cross to bear. I for one am ready to bear it.

and these

 

[Travlyr]

I really do not want to be the thorn in the side of Gary Johnson. However, on inauguration day, Gary will be shown the wizard behind the curtain and his platform will be... whatever they tell him it is. That is why they 'Blacked Out' Ron Paul. Ron Paul has already peaked behind the curtain and they KNOW he will not sacrifice his principles to conform. Gary Johnson is incapable of delivering freedom to Americans because he himself doesn't understand it. Freedom comes from ending the Fed. Freedom comes from Separation of Money and State. Freedom only comes from Separation of Money and State as advocated by Hayek, Rothbard, and Paul. Separation of Currency and State is the most important issue of our day.

 

[TheTexan]

Separation of Currency and State is the most important issue of our day.

And this too

 

[hammy]

No. One. But. Paul.

Let me be real here, and lay out a case (without going into GJ's political standpoints) why we should all vote for Ron Paul.

Can Gary Johnson win in November?
No.

Can Ron Paul win in November?
No.

Will you vote for Mitt Romney or Obama?
No.

So it's between GJ and Ron Paul?
Yes.

But neither can win?
Correct.

With whom are you ideologically closer?
Ron Paul.

So, should you vote for Ron Paul?
I guess but I also want to support the libertarian party.

Do you want to support a mediocre Republican/Democratic Candidate?
No.

Then why would you support a mediocre Libertarian Candidate?
Because I want to grow the Libertarian base, to let people know we are out here.

Why grow the base in the wrong/stilted direction?
Some spotlight is better than no spotlight.

So it's compromise?
No it's... *sigh*... yes.

Did Ron Paul ever compromise?
*Sigh*...no mom.

Did our founders compromise on our freedom?
No! Ok I get it.

So... no one but Paul?
No one but Paul!

 

[Respect38]

No. One. But. Paul.

Let me be real here, and lay out a case (without going into GJ's political standpoints) why we should all vote for Ron Paul.

Can Gary Johnson win in November?
No.

Wrong, he can mathematically win, and if he gets to the debates, he could get a significant amount of disgruntled Rs, Ds, as well as a significant amount of the independent vote.

Can Ron Paul win in November?
No.

The convention has not occurred yet, but based on this answer, I'm assuming you are using the scenario where Ron Paul does not get the GOP nomination.

Will you vote for Mitt Romney or Obama?
No.

Same...

So it's between GJ and Ron Paul?
Yes.

Effectively. You could also make the argument for Virgil Goode, but he has a mediocre voting record, as well as less chance to win it all than Gary Johnson.

But neither can win?
Correct.

Incorrect as stated above. Neither candidate has reached a point where he "cannot win".

With whom are you ideologically closer?
Ron Paul.

Once again, this assumes the context that neither can win, which is incorrect, therefore this is null.

So, should you vote for Ron Paul?
I guess but I also want to support the libertarian party.

Same...

Do you want to support a mediocre Republican/Democratic Candidate?
No.

Same...

Then why would you support a mediocre Libertarian Candidate?
Because I want to grow the Libertarian base, to let people know we are out here.

...mediocre candidate? What? I'm going to assume that you weren't referring to Gary Johnson, just looking at what he's been able to do so far.

Why grow the base in the wrong/stilted direction?
Some spotlight is better than no spotlight.

I... same.

So it's compromise?
No it's... *sigh*... yes.

Some compromise is good--it's sad that people have got it in there mind that any compromise = bad. Gary's message is a message of freedom.

Did Ron Paul ever compromise?
*Sigh*...no mom.

What exactly does this prove? Ron Paul may have never compromised, but has that lack of compromise gotten him anywhere that he wouldn't have gotten to? Who knows, maybe the lack of any kind of compromise may have hurt him in the long run.

Did our founders compromise on our freedom?
No! Ok I get it.

Once again, what is this supposed to prove? If you're going to imply that the founders never compromised at all, have you ever heard of the Connecticut Compromise?

So... no one but Paul?
No one but Paul!

...so, where's the part where I find out why I'm supposed to give Robamney a half-vote?

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Anyone have any news on Gary's experience with Economics In One Lesson and For A New Liberty?

 

[Nathan Hale]

I really do not want to be the thorn in the side of Gary Johnson. However, on inauguration day, Gary will be shown the wizard behind the curtain and his platform will be... whatever they tell him it is. That is why they 'Blacked Out' Ron Paul. Ron Paul has already peaked behind the curtain and they KNOW he will not sacrifice his principles to conform. Gary Johnson is incapable of delivering freedom to Americans because he himself doesn't understand it.

It's a conspiracy! RUN!!!!